FUGITIVE CRIMINALS (Hansard, 20 November 1968)

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan)
I beg to move, That the Fugitive Offenders (United Kingdom Dependencies) Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th November, be approved. The Fugitive Offenders Act, 1967 governs the return of offenders from the United Kingdom to other Commonwealth countries. For these purposes an offender is a person who is accused of, or is alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of, an offence which is a returnable offence under Section 3 of the Act.
The term "Commonwealth countries" means both the independent countries of the Commonwealth and the Dependencies of the United Kingdom. Under the Act, our Dependencies are deemed to include not only the Colonies proper, but also Associated States of the West Indies and the countries in which Her Majesty has 1486 jurisdiction or over which she extends protection.
The provisions of the Act apply automatically to the Colonies proper and the Associated States. The return of offenders to the independent countries of the Commonwealth is, however, dependent on those countries being designated by Order under Section 2(1) of the Act, and this has been done by the Fugitive Offenders (Designated Commonwealth Countries) Order of 1967, supplemented by two similar Orders in Council in 1968 relating respectively to Mauritius and Swaziland on those countries gaining their independence.
Similarly, for the provisions of the Act to apply to the return of offenders from the United Kingdom to a Protectorate or a protected State, an Order in Council is required to be made under Section 2(2, c) of the Act, specifying the country concerned. The draft Order in Council now before the House thus applies the provisions of the Act to the return of offenders to the British Solomon Islands Protectorate, Brunei, the New Hebrides and Tonga.
It should be made clear that this does not initiate arrangements for the return of offenders from the United Kingdom to those countries, for such arrangements have previously existed under the provisions of the old Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, which the Act of 1967 now repeals and replaces.
There are a few minor modifications to the basic provisions of the 1967 Act, but they are only such as are required to meet the needs imposed by certain features of the political and judicial structures of the countries concerned. Thus, in relation to Brunei, the New Hebrides and Tonga, the references in the Act to the Governor are inappropriate, and Article 2 of the Order provides accordingly for their modification. In the case of Tonga, for example, references to the Governor are to be construed as references to the Premier of Tonga.
Secondly, Article 3 takes account of the fact that the New Hebrides is a condominium having, besides a British court, a French court, a joint Anglo-French court and native courts. Section 3(1) of the Act has therefore been modified to provide that a person shall be 1487 returned to the New Hebrides only if he is liable to be tried there, or has been convicted, and is at large following conviction, by the High Court of the Western Pacific or the Joint Court.
If approved, the Order in Council will be made together with a Commencing Order under Section 22 of the Act which does not require an affirmative Resolution, bringing the relevant provisions of the Act into operation as regards Protectorates and Protected States.

§ Mr. Antony Buck (Colchester)
We are grateful to the Minister for his clear and relatively brief delineation of the effect of the Order. In essence, it makes provision for the return, in appropriate circumstances, of offenders who have prima facie been guilty of an offence in their home areas and have come to this country. It deals with such romantic places as the British Solomon Islands, Brunei, the New Hebrides and Tonga, which has a special place in our affection for a variety of reasons, not least the high esteem for the late Queen of that territory.
There are not many matters on which I need detain the House. The first is to point out that this Order and the Act on which it depends are, in their essence, reciprocal. The Order provides for the return of people who have come to this country from the places that I have mentioned allegedly having committed offences in their countries of origin. There will not be a flood of them; it will not often arise that an offender will come here from Tonga. But the essence of international relations concerning fugitive offenders is reciprocity, and I would be grateful if, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Gentleman could tell us the position relative to the territories with which we are dealing.
Are there similar arrangements whereby, if any of our alleged offenders makes his way to somewhere like Tonga, he will be returned? Have these countries brought in similar Measures? If not, has the intention been expressed to do so?
My next point is that there have been other Orders relating to other Dependences 1488 and territories. Is this the last that we can anticipate? What, for example, is the position concerning the dependent or quasi-dependent territories in the Gulf area? It would be inappropriate to refer to Rhodesia at this stage, because that is outside the ambit of this discussion, but there are other Dependencies. Is it intended to bring forward future Orders dealing with them?
The Act on which this Order is based is somewhat unusual in that it gives the power, by Order, to modify the whole scheme. One looks carefully at an Instrument which, by its format, can alter the basic legislation on which it depends. This has been done in the paragraphs to which the hon. Gentleman referred only in relatively minor matters, I think, and I would be grateful for specific confirmation of that.
Finally, any further words that the hon. Gentleman can say about the High Court of the Western Pacific would be of interest. I have never heard of the court. It sounds very romantic, and there has been a reorientation in my ambition in that I hope one day to be briefed in that court. It has been thought appropriate to make specific reference to it, and anything that the hon. Gentleman can say about it will be of interest to the House.

§ Mr. Elystan Morgan
With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I will be glad to deal with the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck).
On the last point, about briefing in the Court of the Western Pacific, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that it is not open for lawyers to solicit the custom of any person or persons in any court whatsoever.
On the question of modifications, where an Order-in-Council is made under Section 2(1) or under Section 2(2, c) of the Act, as this draft Order is made, it may also include provisions, in accordance with Section 2(3) of the Act, for such "exceptions, adaptations or modifications" to the standard arrangements for return as may be considered appropriate to the needs of a particular country. This draft Order incorporates some minor changes of this kind.
1489 The changes in the draft Order are purely mechanical, but there could be modifications in other Orders that went more to the substance of the 1967 Act. Although in this particular case the modifications are minimal, in theory they could be made to deal with the omission of the need to produce evidence to establish a prima facie case against an accused person—the mere formal proof of the issue of a warrant, for example. In some cases, where such territories have a common frontier, it is possible that such modifications would be appropriate and even necessary.
On reciprocity, arrangements for the return of fugitive offenders customarily operate on a reciprocal basis. I am sure that the House will be glad to know that provision for the return of fugitives to the United Kingdom has been or will be made in the law of each of the four countries and territories mentioned in the draft Order. The Fugitive Offenders (British Solomon Islands Protectorate) Order, 1967 came into operation on 1st January, 1968, and the Fugitive Offenders (New Hebrides) Order, 1968 on 19th July this year Both those territories—as could be the case of each of the four we have mentioned—are able to deal with this matter by an Order in Council rather than by full formality of legislation. Both Brunei and Tonga have signified their intention of proceeding by way of full legislation and we expect them quite shortly to enact laws similar to the 1967 Act.
Of the countries outside Her Majesty's Dominions in which Her Majesty has jurisdiction or over which she extends protection, the Persian Gulf States alone have not been included in the Order. The position, therefore, will be that the coming into force of this Order, if the House accepts it, will have the effect of repealing in full and in general the provisions of the 1881 Act. Therefore, there will be no provision for the return of offenders from such time to the point in time when these territories become independent countries. If, however, the need to resume such arrangements should be apparent in future, this could be achieved by an Order specifying the Persian Gulf States as countries to which the Act applies.

§ Mr. Buck
On that further point, it seems that a matter of some seriousness—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)
Order. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is speaking on the Minister resuming his seat.

§ Mr. Buck
Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has not the right to speak a second time.

§ Mr. Buck
No. I was interrupting. I understood that, with his usual courtesy, the Under-Secretary had given way.
It seems that a matter of some seriousness arises. Apparently, there is no reciprocal arrangement in the matter either way with the Persian Guf States. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could say whether it is our intention to enter into negotiations with the appropriate States to see that the gap in the scheme is filled in the near future.

§ Mr. Morgan
This is a matter on which the Home Office acts in conjunction with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I confirm that that will be the position as from 1st January, 1969, if the Order comes into force, but the position could easily be rectified if there were occasion so to do.
It is noteworthy that there is only one recorded case of an application for the return of an offender from the Persian Gulf States, that of Demetrious, in 1966.

§ Mr. Buck
What about Tonga?

§ Mr. Morgan
I should need notice of that question to enable me to answer it.