Beijing has weighed in on the row over a Hong Kong government proposal to allow the transfer of fugitives to jurisdictions not covered by an extradition deal, saying foreign countries expressing concerns should respect the city’s rule of law and legislative process. The central government broke its silence on the issue on Saturday after the Post learned that the city’s Law Society had urged Hong Kong officials to explore alternatives to the proposal. A former senior Hong Kong prosecutor warned the proposed case-by-case approach would effectively open up the city to repressive countries such as Iran. The Security Bureau last month proposed an amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance and Mutual Legal Assistance Ordinance, which would allow for the transfer of fugitives to Taiwan, Macau, mainland China or any jurisdiction Hong Kong does not have an agreement with. Officials said the move was justified to plug a loophole exposed by a recent homicide case in Taiwan. The proposal has sparked concerns from the European Union, Hong Kong’s American Chamber of Commerce, the local business community and the pro-democracy camp, with some warning it would damage the city’s reputation as a “secure haven for international business”. A spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it had noted the views raised, but hoped the relevant parties would attach importance to Hong Kong government statements saying the standards to be adopted would be consistent with common practice on fugitive transfers. “Combating crimes through cooperation is the common need of the international community and serves the interests of all parties. The relevant countries should respect the rule of law in Hong Kong and its normal legislative process,” the spokesman said. He added that the Hong Kong government was still studying the views received. In Hong Kong, the Law Society echoed an earlier suggestion floated by the Bar Association that the government should instead amend laws and allow local judges to hear murder cases where Hong Kong residents were suspects or victims. The extradition issue has been in the spotlight since Hongkonger Chan Tong-kai was accused by Taiwanese authorities of killing his pregnant girlfriend in Taipei in February last year. Chan later fled back to Hong Kong and could not be extradited as there was no extradition agreement with Taiwan. Similar arrangements are also lacking between Hong Kong, mainland China and Macau. In a submission to the Security Bureau, as obtained by the Post , the Law Society’s committee on criminal matters said the Criminal Jurisdiction Ordinance (CJO) allowed local courts to hear cases of offences committed abroad, and so the loophole as claimed should instead be addressed by allowing homicide cases to be judged in Hong Kong courts. The ordinance currently lists 18 types of triable offences committed overseas, including forgery, blackmail and theft, although these do not include offences of bodily harm such as murder or assault. The professional legal body pointed to the nature of homicide as “one of the most heinous offences” to mankind, and said the alternatives would be relatively easy and quick. Hong Kong security chief defends extradition proposal, citing public response “The inclusion of such an offence on the list of exceptions in the CJO should not be met with any major opposition in the Legislative Council,” the society wrote in the submission. “This is the case in particular when, in respect of the recent Taiwan homicide case, Legislative Council members have openly expressed much sympathy for the victim’s family.” It added that the additional benefit would be that either suspect or victim would be familiar with legal proceedings in their hometown. “His or her trial would be in accordance with court rules and procedures which he or she and the local community (including the victim’s family) should be familiar with, and the usual appeal mechanisms would be available to the accused to ensure due process and a fair trial,” it wrote. Michael Blanchflower SC, who previously served as senior assistant director of public prosecutions, said the two legal bodies’ proposal was feasible as long as Hong Kong and Taiwan were willing to collaborate. EU concerned over Hong Kong plan for mainland China extraditions “If Taiwan authorities directed a police officer to travel to Hong Kong to attend as witness, that’s possible,” Blanchflower said. “Or a letter of request could be issued to Hong Kong courts to take evidence in Taiwan.” The extradition law expert, who previously served in the Department of Justice’s extradition division, helping oversee the drafting of key extradition deals, said mutual trust in jurisdictions was a “fundamental cornerstone” of extradition arrangements, which often involved holistic scrutiny of the requesting countries’ legal and political systems. He said the government’s case-by-case approach removed that scrutiny, and essentially opened Hong Kong to any place. “If there’s a case-based system in place, what it’s opened up is transfer to Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Azerbaijan, Russia, Iran – can you imagine Hong Kong returning someone to Iran, Afghanistan or Ethiopia?” Blanchflower said. He cited 37 countries that had rectified extradition treaties with mainland China. “Looking at those 37 countries, there is not one common law jurisdiction,” he said. Security minister John Lee Ka-chiu has previously stressed that sufficient safeguards in the existing extradition law would be maintained to ensure fugitives would not be prosecuted for their race, religion, nationality or political opinion. He added the accused could also “defend his case” in a Hong Kong extradition hearing. Fugitives should only be extradited to Taiwan, not mainland China But Blanchflower said the fugitives faced a virtually non-existent chance to argue against the request, and the presiding magistrate would grant the transfer if the prosecution could prove there was a prima facie case to answer. “Because the general principle of extradition law is that any defence or objections are to be taken up by trial court in that requesting state,” he said. “A person cannot say, ‘well all the witnesses that the requesting state have used are liars’; the magistrate doesn’t entertain those objections.” He added that the political charges by a foreign state could easily be masked by another, common, crime. “The requesting state can say it isn’t a political offence – it’s a fraud offence.”