§ 'Where the crime, in respect of which surrender of a fugitive offender is sought pursuant to the Extradition Acts 1870 to 1935 or to the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 or under this Act, is an offence under this Act, the order of the Secretary of State relating to such proceedings may be addressed to any stipendiary magistrate in England or Northern Ireland or to any sheriff or sheriff-substitute in Scotland'.—[Mr. Clinton Davis.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Clinton DavisI beg to move, That the clause be read a second time.
This is a probing amendment. Where a crime, in respect of which the surrender of a fugitive criminal is sought, is committed on board a ship on the high seas which comes into any port in the United Kingdom, the order relating to such proceedings may be addressed to any stipendiary magistrate in England or Northern Ireland or a sheriff or sheriff-substitute in Scotland. The position is not clear concerning an aircraft.
Has the stipendiary magistrate to whom the order will be addressed in England to be the chief magistrate or one of the other magistrates at Bow Street Magistrates' Court, as defined by Section 26 of the Extradition Act 1870? Or may it be dealt with in the same way as a ship on the high seas? I can see no difference of principle between a crime committed on board ship and one committed on an aircraft.
§ Mr. OnslowPerhaps I can take this opportunity, briefly and in slightly more relaxed circumstances, to congratulate the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) on his elevation to that dangerous position from which he has just spoken. I hope that our remaining debates tonight will be in a greater spirit of amity and concord, and that we shall not need to fall out again—although he knows that I am always willing to oblige if he insists.
I have corresponded with the hon. Gentleman on one of these points. In a letter dated 30th May, I explained that, to the extent that the new clause was intended to apply Section 16 of the Extradition Act, 1870, to offences under the 1672 Bill committed on board aircraft which landed in the United Kingdom, it was unnecessary. No such provision is required, in view of Section 2(1) of the Tokyo Convention Act, the provisions of which I dare say the hon. Member is sufficiently familiar with for me not to need to rehearse them.
§ Mr. Clinton DavisPerhaps the Minister would do so, briefly.
§ Mr. OnslowThe hon. Gentleman always accuses me of reading quickly, but in response to his invitation, I would say that the Act says:
For the purposes of the application of the Extradition Act 1870 to crime committed on board an aircraft in flight … paragraphs (1) to (3) of section 16 of that Act (which have effect where a person's surrender is sought in respect of a crime committed on board a vessel on the high seas which comes into any port of the United Kingdom) shall have effect also where a person's surrender is sought in respect of a crime committed on board an aircraft in flight which lands in the United Kingdom….I hope that that meets the hon. Gentleman's point, and that he is not seeking information on any other point. If he is, I am briefed on that too, but on the assumption that he is not, I give him that as the answer.
§ Mr. Clinton DavisIn the light of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
§ Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.