Advertisement
Advertisement
Letters | If Hong Kong amends its extradition policy, the courts cannot always be counted on to act as a safeguard
- Requests for the transfer of a fugitive for a ‘political’ crime may happen under the pretence of another offence, in which case Hong Kong courts may not be able to stop the extradition
I refer to Mr Ronny Tong’s article “Let’s put justice first” (February 28) relating to the government’s proposed extradition arrangement with Taiwan, Macau and the mainland.
A human rights speech in one place may be a seditious criminal act in another and thus criminality is a rather relative concept. Of course, an extradition treaty usually has a mutual criminality provision.
Mr Tong relies heavily on the proposed Section 5, whereby a person shall not be extradited on account of his political opinions and the Hong Kong courts will be a safeguard in this respect. However, judges are human and may be liable to yield to political pressure or other motives.
Furthermore, the Justice Department may argue that a person with opposing political views is not justified in committing a crime with impunity and if the prima facie evidence does show that a person, for example, committed a traffic offence resulting in homicide, he should be extradited. It would be very difficult for a Hong Kong judge not to grant the order.
It is for the Hong Kong public to make a factual assessment of whether judges are strong enough to withstand political influence. The courts in this case may not be a good safeguard.
S.W. Lau, Central
Post