Hong Kong Constitutional Law - in order to combat cross-border crime in an effective way, clear principles and details on practice as to under which conditions suspects should be transferred between Hong Kong and the Mainland is essential.

GDEHKL Year 1: Hong Kong Constitutional Law

Cross-border Crime and Jurisdiction

Ho Chung Yan 10493500

CROSS-BORDER CRIME AND JURISDICTION

Under the principle of “One Country, Two Systems”, the mainland of the PRC (“Mainland”) uses a continental civil law system, while the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is under the common law system. After the handover of Hong Kong’s sovereignty to the PRC in 1997, economic and social interaction among people from the two places increased rapidly. As a result thereof, the number of cross-border crimes has also increased, which has given rise to some controversies in respect of the jurisdiction of Hong Kong and Mainland courts over cross-border crime. Furthermore, in order to combat cross-border crime in an effective way, clear principles and details on practice as to under which conditions suspects should be transferred between Hong Kong and the Mainland is essential.

In this paper, I will examine the division of criminal jurisdiction by first defining criminal jurisdiction and providing a background followed by a discussion over the jurisdictional controversies arising from two landmark cases in a constitutional perspective. Then, I will examine the relevance of a rendition agreement in solving these controversies and the principles in deciding jurisdiction between Hong Kong and the Mainland over cross-border cases. Lastly, I will explore the difficulties in reaching a formal rendition agreement between Hong Kong and the PRC.

Criminal Jurisdiction

In general, criminal jurisdiction refers to the right of a sovereign state to prosecute, try and punish a crime that occurs within its sovereignty. In defining the scope of criminal jurisdiction, there are four basic factors to take into consideration. They are: (i) the place where the crime was committed; (ii) the nature of the person who commited the crime; (iii) the nature of the victim of the crime; and (iv) the nature of the crime. These factors derive different principles of criminal jurisdiction namely, the territorial principle, the nationality principle, the passive personality principle, the protective principle and the universality principle. All these principles except the territorial principle are principles for the application of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Hong Kong applies mainly the territorial principle in exercising its criminal jurisdiction. Hong Kong only has limited extra-territorial jurisdiction which is provided by law. On the other hand, the Mainland uses the eclectic approach in which the territorial principle is the basic rule, with the personality and the protective principles as its supplements.

Background

The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China (“BL”) which prescribes the systems to be practiced in the Hong Kong, affirms at Article 18 and 19 Hong Kong’s right to enjoy independent judicial power and final adjudication. No national law shall be applied in Hong Kong unless they are written on Annex III of the BL. Mainland courts cannot intervene in the judicial jurisdiction or the legal sovereignty of the courts in Hong Kong and the legal independence enjoyed by Hong Kong Courts is parallel to their counterparts in the Mainland. That is to say, Hong Kong courts enjoy exclusive criminal jurisdiction within its borders and Hong Kong residents while inside Hong Kong, have no duty to abide by the PRC Criminal Law as it is not listed in the Annex III. On the other hand, mainlanders in Hong Kong are subject to the jurisdiction of Hong Kong Courts.

The Controversies arising from the Big Spender Case

In 1998, Cheung Tse-Keung, a Hong Kong resident who committed kidnapping and armed robbery in Hong Kong was prosecuted, tried and sentenced under PRC criminal law. This provoked a debate over the exercising of jurisdiction on cross-border cases between Hong Kong and the Mainland courts which came from the differences in interpreting Article 6 of the PRC Criminal Law.

Article 6 of the PRC Criminal Law is applicable when a person commits a crime within the territory of the PRC. Some people opined that the Mainland courts have no jurisdiction on a crime committed within Hong Kong’s judicial territory. Scholar Benny Tai expressed that Article 18 of the BL had excluded the applicability of the PRC Criminal Law in Hong Kong and hence Article 6 of the PRC Criminal Law should have no effect on criminal acts committed within Hong Kong. He further expressed the view that Article 19 of the BL provides that Hong Kong courts have jurisdiction over all cases in Hong Kong, as it not only defines the judicial jurisdiction of Hong Kong but also divides the judicial jurisdiction between Hong Kong and the Mainland. Cheung’s case infringes the jurisdiction of Hong Kong, and undermined certain provisions in the Basic Law and the concept of one country, two systems. The chance of receiving fair trials by the offenders was in doubt. The defence lawyer of Cheung even commented that “this in not only a death sentence for Cheung Tse-keung but also a death sentence for ‘one country, two systems’ ”.

However, Paragraph 3 of Article 6 of the PRC Criminal Law provides that a crime is deemed to have occurred in the territory of the PRC if either the criminal act or its consequence happened in the PRC’s territory. The Secretary for Justice Elsie Leung pointed out that according to Article 22 of the PRC Criminal Law, the preparation for a crime in itself is a crime. Although the kidnapping and robbery were allegedly committed in Hong Kong, preparatory work was carried out in the Mainland including planning and the purchase of weapons and equipment. She stated that the Mainland courts did have jurisdiction over Cheung’s case, the argument that the principle of “one country, two systems” was undermined is only a misconception.

Likewise, Professor Fu and Professor Cullen, while acknowledging the effect of Article 18 they noted that under the BL, there is no provision allowing Hong Kong to be sealed off from other places in this world under a form of legal protection to nullify foreign laws. They stated that the BL does not provide power for Hong Kong to determine which laws in other jurisdictions to be excluded from applying on its residents.

In brief, the issue is whether Hong Kong enjoys exclusive jurisdiction. If it does not then a situation of concurrent jurisdiction must exist, in which case which jurisdiction should prevail over another? How should we determine who has jurisdiction?

The Controversies arising from the Fung Shui Master Case

The Fung Shui Master case concerned Li Yuhui, a Chinese national who killed five women in Hong Kong and escaped back to the Mainland was tried and sentenced under the PRC Criminal Law. As Li was a Chinese national, he was triable under Article 7 of the PRC Criminal Law which provides that the PRC Criminal Law applies when a citizen of the PRC committed a crime as specified by the PRC Criminal Law outside the territory (“lingyu”) of the PRC. Under this provision, the meaning of “citizen of the PRC” and “the territory (“lingyu”) of the PRC” needs to be studied.

Elsie Leung suggested that residents of Hong Kong should be distinguished from residents of the PRC and that Article 7 of the PRC Criminal Law only includes residents of the PRC. She further suggested that “lingyu” referred to jurisdictional territory only. This was as “lingyu” is a territorial concept in the sense of jurisdiction, whereas “lingtu” is a concept related to sovereignty. Using the word “lingtu” instead of “lingyu” would jeapordise the territorial integrity of China. Accordingly, the word “lingyu” is used so as to maintain China’s territorial integrity. As a linyu has its own legal jurisdiction (“fayu”), Hong Kong should be classified as outside the lingyu of the PRC.

However, some scholars do not support Elsie Leung’s explanations of “lingyu” and “citizen of the PRC”. The term of “jurisdictional territory” has never existed in both international law and Chinese law. Although sovereignty and jurisdiction are two separate legal concepts, under international law, a state’s sovereignty is shown in its jurisdiction. Confining the interpretation of “lingyu” to the Mainland with exclusion of Hong Kong and confining “citizen of the PRC” to mainland residents with exclusion of Hong Kong residents imply separation of Hong Kong’s sovereignty from China which would infringe the spirit of “One Country” under the “One Country, Two Systems” principle. It was opined that “lingyu” is defined as the scope of sovereignty of a state, whereas “fayu” in general is referred to a region where a legal system applies and takes effect. “Fayu” can either take a state or an administrative region within a state as a unit. Hence, Hong Kong should be viewed as a special administrative region within the lingyu of the PRC but outside the fayu of the Mainland. Therefore, the meaning of “citizens of the PRC” should be understood from the nationality perspective instead of the residency one.

Bing Ling pointed out a supportive argument from Article 20(1) of the Law on the Garrisoning of Hong Kong, which provides that if members of garrison commit crimes in Hong Kong during their performance of official duties, they will be subject to the jurisdiction of the PRC military courts. However, if crimes are committed in Hong Kong during their off-duty hours, the members of garrison will be subject under the jurisdiction of Hong Kong courts only. Therefore, it must follow the same logic that the crimes committed by ordinary mainlanders in Hong Kong are subject to exclusive jurisdiction of ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Although the explanation suggested by Elsie Leung is weak, however, Scholar Albert H.Y. Chen suggested that under the current situation in which there is no criminal mutual assistance arrangement between Hong Kong and the Mainland regarding the surrender of fugitive offenders, considering the inconvenience in transferring the offenders to Hong Kong for trial, there is a practical need for the Mainland courts to adopt the personality principle and exercise jurisdiction over crime committed by mainlanders in Hong Kong so as to efficiently deter and punish such crime.

Again, Li’s case raises concerns about who have jurisdiction? Would the existence and non-existence of a rendition agreement affect the principles in determining who should have jurisdiction?

Relevance of a rendition agreement to the jurisdictional controversies

Currently, there is no rendition agreement between Hong Kong and the Mainland enabling the formal transfer of an alleged offender from the Mainland to Hong Kong. Could a rendition agreement help resolve who has jurisdiction in a cross-border case?

The absence of formal rendition arrangement does not actually prohibit the transfer of suspects from the mainland to the Hong Kong. Under existing administrative arrangements between Hong Kong and the Mainland, fugitives have been transferred back to Hong Kong for crime committed in Hong Kong although this has been limited to non-Mainland offenders. However, surrender of fugitives from Hong Kong to the Mainland has never occurred. The non-surrender of Mainlanders and the one-way nature of transfers, undermine the effectiveness of the arrangement in combating cross-border crimes.

It should be noted that whether Mainland courts can exercise their jurisdiction in Hong Kong is not an incidental issue to a rendition arrangement. If there is any rendition agreement entered by Hong Kong and the Mainland, it will only provide for the transfer of suspects as with most normal extradition treaties. The solution for deciding which jurisdiction should prevail over another will remain unresolved by the negotiation of a rendition agreement. Since a rendition agreement concerns only the transfer of suspects, not the underlying issue of competing jurisdictions. If the existence of concurrent jurisdiction within the territory of Hong Kong over cross-border crimes is affirmed, the PRC Criminal Law will still be applicable even after the conclusion of a rendition agreement. Unless the rendition agreement had specified the exclusion of the PRC Criminal Law’s applicability over the territory of Hong Kong, problem under concurrent jurisdiction still exists.

Further, the absence of a rendition arrangement only constitutes an executive problem but not a legal problem. Indeed, under Article 95 of the BL, Hong Kong is allowed to maintain juridical relations with the judicial organs of other parts of the country through consultation. Judicial assistance has been contemplated in Article 95 of the BL. Theoretically, if Hong Kong can maintain an effective system of judicial assistance over transfer of suspects with PRC judicial institutions, the transfer of suspects (even a mainland suspect) for crimes that were solely committed in Hong Kong should not create any problem. Hence, even under the assumption that the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the Mainland under the personality principle was not applicable to Hong Kong cases and that the PRC Criminal Law could not apply in Hong Kong should raise no practical problem to any such transfer.

In short, a rendition agreement governing the transfer of suspects between the Hong Kong and the Mainland does not resolve the issue of who should have jurisdiction. Rather, it is a tool for executing the principles in dividing criminal jurisdiction and would set out the framework of under what conditions suspects would be transferred.

Principles in deciding jurisdiction between Hong Kong and Mainland

The conflict of jurisdiction between Hong Kong and the Mainland is a regional conflict which happens within a country. It happens in two fayu which have fundamental differences in their respective economic and social conditions and jurisprudence. While Hong Kong belongs to the common law system, the Mainland is belonged to the socialist legal system. Furthermore, the occurrence of the conflict is based upon the premises that Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of autonomy, independent legislative power and final adjudication. The conflict of jurisdiction between Hong Kong and the Mainland cannot be resolved by unified substantive law as each jurisdiction has its own criminal law system nor can it be solved by a unified court as Hong Kong courts are not subordinate to the Mainland Courts. Therefore, developing specific principles for determining which place should have jurisdiction is essential.

There are lots of different opinions and suggestions in relation to the principles and criteria for deciding the criminal jurisdiction between Hong Kong and the Mainland. Nevertheless, the principles should not be incompatible with the basic policies guaranteed by the PRC in the BL and its articles in relation to Hong Kong.

Scholar Zhang Xiaoming has proposed some general principles for deciding jurisdiction over cross-border crimes. Firstly, in the situation of concurrent jurisdiction of both Hong Kong and the Mainland, the judicial institutions of the place where the crime occurs should exercise the jurisdiction. Secondly, if the act of crime and the consequence of the crime occur in different places, the judicial institutions of the place where the consequence of the crime occurs should have the jurisdiction. Thirdly, if a crime is committed partly in Hong Kong and partly in the Mainland, the judicial institutions of the place where the main criminal act or the main elements of crime occurs should have the jurisdiction. Fourthly, if the crimes were committed in Hong Kong and the Mainland consecutively, the judicial institutions of both sides should have jurisdiction over the particular crime happened in its own jurisdiction.

Scholars Zhao Bingzhi and Tian Honjie have proposed a list of specific rules for settling the conflict of criminal jurisdiction between Hong Kong and the Mainland. They suggested that in dealing with this conflict, the territorial principle should be used as the basis and supplemented by the principles of “actual control” and “first control”. Nevertheless, the concept of “first control” was not clear. Should it be determined by where a victim first reports the case; or should it be determined by the place which starts the investigation first; or should it be determined by the place which starts the prosecution first. All these required further exploration before they could be used for solving the criminal jurisdiction conflict between Hong Kong and the Mainland.

As suggested by Priscilla Leung, the “most convenient venue” principle should precede in determining which jurisdiction prevail another. She suggested that in the cases of a continuous act across jurisdictions, the place where the “major damage” is committed should have jurisdiction over the case. However, she did not elaborate on the concept of most convenient venue. Should convenient venue be considered in terms of prosecuting the offender? Or should it mean the most convenient venue for trial taking the availability of evidence into account? Or should it be the venue for offenders to keep contact with family under humanitarian grounds? Again, the meaning of “most convenience venue” requires further exploration before it can be used for solving the criminal jurisdiction conflict between Hong Kong and the Mainland.

To summarize, most of the views mentioned above seems to suggest that territorial principle should be the major principle. If it cannot resolve the conflict, principles such as “the most convenient venue”, “the first control” and “the actual control” can be taken into consideration if they are specific and clear enough.

Difficulties in reaching a Formal Rendition Agreement

Hong Kong has successfully negotiated and entered into more than 10 bilateral extradition agreements with foreign countries. By contrast, no formal rendition agreement has been reached between Hong Kong and China. In fact, the relationship of Hong Kong and China, being a Special Administrative Region within one country, is different from that under a rendition agreement between Hong Kong and foreign countries. As a result of such difference, there are some issues regarding the content and scope of the formulation of a formal rendition agreement will raise difficulties.

Double Criminality

In drafting a rendition agreement between the Hong Kong and China, one of the most important issues is whether the “double criminality principle” which provides that only conducts which are punishable under laws of both sides can amount to an extradition should be adopted. This principle is an international convention adopted between countries. There is opinion that this principle should not be adopted as the agreement between Hong Kong and China is merely a regional issue which should be distinguished from the international one between countries. They based their reasoning on the territorial principle over jurisdiction and the fact that provisions on criminal offence in the two places are different. However, others have suggested that this principle should be adopted as it has already been followed by Hong Kong and the Mainland over their current extradition judicial practice.

Extraditable Offence

Another issue to be taken into consideration is what offences can amount to a transfer. The Fugitive Offenders Ordinance (“FOO”) which governs the arrangements for the surrenders of fugitive offenders between Hong Kong and foreign countries (exclude the Mainland China) has adopted the listing approach in defining the meaning of extraditable offences. Whereas in China, the eliminative approach has been adopted in all the extradition treaties signed between the Mainland and other countries. Whether the enumerative or the eliminative approach should be adopted in the formal rendition agreement is another considerable issue.

Non-extradition for Death Penalty

Another controversial issue is whether non-extradition for death penalty should be implemented in the arrangement. The principle of non-extradition for death penalty is expressly implemented in Hong Kong’s extradition judicial system. The BL in Hong Kong gives effect to Article 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which provides for the protection of right to life and protection of free from danger of torture. Some people are of the view that this principle is an extradition principle among countries, and, it should not be applied in the arrangement between Hong Kong and China. If this principle is to be included from the agreement, Mainland felony offenders may treat Hong Kong as a haven to avoid the death penalty and take advantage from the loopholes of differences between the laws of the two jurisdictions. Nevertheless, if this principle is to be excluded from the rendition agreement between Hong Kong and China, unless special provisions were made for the waiver of the death penalty, it may put Hong Kong in a situation of violating the ICCPR.

Non-extradition of Political Offence

Further, the principle of “Non-extradition of Political Offence” also creates difficulty for the formulation of a formal rendition agreement. This principle received international recognition as a general principle for rendition agreement.The provisions in the FOO provides that no surrender shall be made if the request is for the handling of an offence which is of political character or the request is for the purpose of punishing one’s political opinions. Although this principle is an internationally recognized one which has been adopted between Hong Kong and foreign countries, there are views expressed that considering the nature of one country, the exclusion of this principle is beneficial to the maintenance of China’s sovereignty and political system. Nevertheless, there are views expressed that as the political system and the protection of political rights between the two places are different, in order to maintain the stability of Hong Kong’s system and life style, this principle should be included in the agreement.

In addition to the three principles mentioned above, other issues must be considered such as principle of protecting a fair trial, principle of double jeopardy as well as the review mechanism for any extradition requests. Further study on these issues need to be addressed in reaching a formal rendition agreement.

Conclusion

Regarding the issue of jurisdictional controversies arose from the cross border cases, after considered the different views from scholars, on one hand, it will appear that the provision in BL support a conclusion that the Mainland courts should not be conferred with jurisdiction over crime took place in Hong Kong by adopting the nationality principle. On the other hand, for a practically reasons under the current situation when there is no rendition agreement, in order to combat crime, it is reasonable for China to adopt the nationality principle. Consider the principles in determining which courts should have jurisdiction, the territorial principle should be followed strictly. Cases happened in Hong Kong can therefore only be tried by Hong Kong courts. A rendition agreement is only a practical tool for Hong Kong and China to transfer fugitive offenders between themselves; nevertheless, it does not address the principles in determining which jurisdiction should prevail over another under a situation of concurrent jurisdiction. Summarizing the above and the scholars’ view, to deal with the difficulties arise from the formulation of a formal rendition agreement between Hong Kong and China, I have concluded the following for the future development of a formal rendition agreement.

Firstly, due to the difference criminal justice values and processes between HK and China and the mutuality nature of a formal rendition agreement, Hong Kong Government and Hong Kong people must be ready to accept that under the rendition agreement, the surrender of fugitives must be different from all the previous one as signed between Hong Kong and foreign countries.

Secondly, the double criminality principle can be excluded from the rendition agreement as it will help fighting against crime. Nevertheless, the transfer could only occur when the requesting party based its jurisdiction on the territorial principle and any request based on the extraterritorial principles should not be able to amount a transfer.

Thirdly, the principle of non-extradition of death penalty can also be excluded. This is for the reason to combat crime and to avoid fugitives to perceive Hong Kong as a haven to escape punishment. Nevertheless, the extradition could only occur under an agreement that even the offender is sentenced with the death penalty, a waiver of death must be granted.

Fourthly, in order to protect Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, the non-extradition for political offence should not be implemented. Nevertheless, Hong Kong should formulate its own legislation for the political offence which may endanger the sovereignty of the country under Article 23 of the BL so as to protect the principle under “one country, two systems”.

Lastly, in relation to other issues (i.e. principle of protecting a fair trial, principle of double jeopardy as well as the review mechanism for any extradition requests), study on arrangement in other countries should be conducted so that we can learn from the practice of other countries as a blueprint.

BIBLOGRAPHY

Primary Sources: Statutes

Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (1997 Version)

(Accessed at http://www.lexiscn.com.ezproxy.cityu.edu.hk/law/content.php?provider_id=1&origin_id=470853&isEnglish=Y on 22 January 2011)

The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China

(Accessed at http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/tc/basiclawtext/images/basiclaw_full_text.pdf on 22 January 2011)

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

(Accessed at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm#part3 on 13 February 2011)

Fugitives Offenders Ordinance (Cap.503)

(Accessed at http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_pdf.nsf/6799165D2FEE3FA94825755E0033E532/E3967CE0AF40F7A5482575EF0010009D/$FILE/CAP_503_e_b5.pdf on 13 February 2011)

Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383)

(Accessed at http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_pdf.nsf/6799165D2FEE3FA94825755E0033E532/AE5E078A7CF8E845482575EE007916D8/$FILE/CAP_383_e_b5.pdf on 13 February 2011)

Secondary Sources: Books

Albert H.Y. Chen, “Huiguihou xianggang yu neidi fazhi de hudong: huigu yu qian zhan (Interaction between the legal systems of Hong Kong and the Mainland after the reunification: reflections and prospects)” in Xianggang Falu Jiaoyu Xintuo Jijin(ed), Zhongguo Neidi XianggangFalu Zhidu Yyanjiu yu Bijiao (Comparative Studies on the Legal Systems of Mainland China and Hong Kong) (Beijing: Beijing Daxue Chubanshe,2000)

(Hong Kong Public Library. Borrowed by friend and gave me on 23 February 2011) [Call No.: 580.9391.5644]

Bing Ling, “Neidi yu xianggang xingshi quanxiaquan Chongtu ji yindu wenti yanjiu (A study on the Conflict of Criminal Jurisdiction between the Mainland and Hong Kong and the Problem of Extradition)”in Zhao Bingzhi(ed), Shiji Dajiean: Zhang Ziqang Anjian jiqi Falu Sikao –Zhongguo Neidi yu Xianggang Xingshi Guanxiaquan Chongtu Wenti (Robbery of the Century: The Case of Cheung Tze –keung and its Legal Considerations – the Problem of Conflict of Criminal Jurisdiction between Mainland China and Hong Kong) (Beijing: China Fangzheng Press, 2000)

(Accessed at http://img.sslibrary.com.ezproxy.cityu.edu.hk/n/slib.shtml?sKey=&kid=6A6A6A6E6B6F6A6F3139363437353739&a=072ADCC1E1A0458EF2EC98016EBAE54F&pagenum=1&pagetype=&pages=-1&template=templatessl&fav=http%3A%2F%2Fhn.sslibrary.com%3A80%2FgopdgRead.jsp%3FdxNumber%3D11152616%26d%3D4FEC839A76C7ACB3617D593C96BA1A17%26fenleiID%3D00JX%26username%3Dssgpxgcsdx%26pdgcode%3D40ADED6CEA096C6B55F4897B72452FB8 on 22 January 2011)

Chau Pak-Kwan and Stephen Lam, Research Study on the Agreement between Hong Kong and the Mainland concerning Surrender of Fugitive Offenders,(Hong Kong: Research and Library Services Division, Legislative Council Secretariat, 2001.)

(Hong Kong University Law Library. Accessed in Hong Kong University Library, Special Collection Section on 22nd January 2011.) [Call No.:HK345.2052 C49]

Choy Dick Wan and Fu Hualing, “Cross Border Relation in Criminal Matters” in Gaylord, Gitting and Traver (ed), Introduction to Crime, Law and Justice in Hong Kong (Hong Kong Unversity Press, 2009.)

(Copy Purchased from the Bloomsbury Books Ltd on 19th January 2011.)

Fu. Hualing. “The Form and Substance of Legal Interaction Between Hong Kong and Mainland China: Towards Hong Kong’s New Legal Sovereighty” in R. Wacks(ed), The New Legal Order in Hong Kong (Hong Kong University Press, 1999) pp.95-132.

(Messrs. W.K.To & Co., Solicitors Law Library. Accessed in Messrs. W.K.To & Co., Solicitors on 19 February 2011)

Gao Mingxuan, Xingfaxue Yuanli (Principles of Criminal Law)Vol.1( Beijing,Zhongguo Renmin Daxue Chubanshe, 1993)

(City University Run Run Shaw Library. Accessed in Run Run Shaw Library on 22 January 2011 ) [Call No.:KNQ3812. X55 1993 v.1]

Qichang Lao, “Sizng zai zhongguo neidi ji zianggang liangdi dacheng yijiao taofan xieding shang de wneti yanjiu (Study of the Issues concerning death penalty in the agreement on surrender of fugitive offenders between the Mainland and Hong Kong)” in Weiyun Xiao(ed) xianggang Jjibenfa de Chenggong Shijian (The Successful Practice of Hong Kong Basic Law) (Beijing: Beijing Daxue Chubanshe, 2000)

(City University Run Run Shan Library. Borrowed by friend and gave me on 23 February 2011) [Call No.: law KNR 171.X5294 2000 c.3]

Wong Cheunguang, “Neidi yu xianggang xingshi guanxiaquan de chongtu ji qijie (Conflict of criminal jurisdiction between the Mainland and Hong Kong and the solution),” in Gao Mingzuan & Zhao Bingzhi ed, Xingfa Luncong (Commentaries on Criminal Law), Vol. 3, (Beijing: Falu Chubanshe, 1999)

(City University Run Run Shaw Library. Accessed in Run Run Shaw Library on 22 January 2011. ) [Call No.: K5015.6. X56 v.3]

Yash Ghai, Hong Kong New Constitutional Order (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press,2nd edn, 1999)

(Copy Purchased from the Commercial Press (H.K.) Ltd City University Branch on undefined date back in 2007.)

in Zhao Bingzhi(ed), Shiji Dajiean: Zhang Ziqang Anjian jiqi Falu Sikao –Zhongguo Neidi yu Xianggang Xingshi Guanxiaquan Chongtu Wenti (Robbery of the Century: The Case of Cheung Tze –keung and its Legal Considerations – the Problem of Conflict of Criminal Jurisdiction between Mainland China and Hong Kong) (Beijing: China Fangzheng Press, 2000)

(Accessed at http://img.sslibrary.com.ezproxy.cityu.edu.hk/n/slib.shtml?sKey=&kid=6868686C696D686D3538353732333537&a=F175FE3CFB9C607120104F12DFDE5AFE&pagenum=1&pagetype=&pages=-1&template=templatessl&fav=http%3A%2F%2Fhn.sslibrary.com%3A80%2FgopdgRead.jsp%3FdxNumber%3D11152616%26d%3D4FEC839A76C7ACB3617D593C96BA1A17%26fenleiID%3D00JX%26username%3Dssgpxgcsdx%26pdgcode%3D40ADED6CEA096C6B55F4897B72452FB8 on 22 January 2011)

Zhang Xiaoming, “Lun jiuqi nian hou shegang xingshi anjian de sifa guqnxiaquan (On the jurisdiction over criminal cases involving Hong Kong after 1997)” in Zhao Bingzhi(ed) Xingfa Xintansuo (New Explorations on Criminal Law) (Beijing: Qunzhong Chubanshe,1993)

(Accessed at http://img.sslibrary.com.ezproxy.cityu.edu.hk/n/slib.shtml?sKey=&kid=69686A6C6A6C6A683539313531313138&a=5141A6978E7EF5AE69068CDAD8EFFAA0&pagenum=1&pagetype=&pages=-1&template=templatessl&fav=http%3A%2F%2Fhn.sslibrary.com%3A80%2FgopdgRead.jsp%3FdxNumber%3D10242420%26d%3D29CD6F5EA19636521EB8E25BB2459684%26fenleiID%3D00JX%26username%3Dssgpxgcsdx%26pdgcode%3DFE909FE0590EE8648D47663775D1E55A on 20 February 2011)

Secondary Sources: Articles and Journals

Bing Ling, “Applicability of the PRC Criminal Law in Hong Kong and the prospect of a rendition agreement between Hong Kong and the Mainland” (1999) 29 Hong Kong Law Journal 393-421.

(Messrs. W.K.To & Co., Solicitors Law Library. Accessed in Messrs. W.K.To & Co., Solicitors on 19 January 2011)

Fu, Hualing. “The Battle of Criminal Jurisdiction.” (1998) 28 Hong Kong Law Journal 273-281.

(Messrs. W.K.To & Co., Solicitors Law Library. Accessed in Messrs. W.K.To & Co., Solicitors on 19th January 2011)

Fu Hualing, “Relevance of Chinese Criminal Law to Hong Kong and Its Residents” (1998) 28 Hong Kong Law Journal 229-246.

(Messrs. W.K.To & Co., Solicitors Law Library. Accessed in Messrs. W.K.To & Co., Solicitors on 19th January 2011)

Fu Hualing “One Country and Two Systems: Will Hong Kong and the Mainland Reach an Agreement on Rendition” (1999) Hong Kong Lawyer.

(Accessed at http://www.hk-lawyer.com/InnerPages_features/0/159/1999/1 on 25 January 2011)

Leung, Elsie “Viewing the Jurisdictional Issue from a Proper Perspective” (1999) Hong Kong Lawyer

(Accessed at http://www.hk-lawyer.com/InnerPages_features/0/160/1999/1 on 25th January 2011)

Leung, MF Priscilla “‘Big Spender’ Cheung Tze Keung: A Brief Analysis” (1999) Hong Kong Lawyer

(Accessed at http://www.hk-lawyer.com/InnerPages_features/0/151/1999/1 on 25 January 2011)

Margaret Ng, “The Protection of Justice under Hong Kong’s System of Laws,” (1998) Hong Kong Lawyer

(Accessed at http://www.hk-lawyer.com/InnerPages_features/0/132/1998/12 on 25 January 2011)

Mark S. Gaylord, “Cross-border Crime and Legal Jurisdiction in post-colonial Hong Kong” (1999) 31 Crime, Law & Social Change 31-48.

(Accessed at http://0-www.springerlink.com.lib.cityu.edu.hk/content/p1n2746426r60g66/fulltext.pdf on 22 January 2011)

Richard Cullen and Fu Hualing, “Some Limitations in the Basic Law Exposed” (1999) China Perspective 54.

(Hong Kong University Law Library. Accessed in Hong Kong University Library on 23 January 2011)

Wong Kam C., “Legal and Political Implcation of a “Cross-border Crime”” (1999) 22 China Perspective 41.

(Hong Kong University Law Library. Accessed in Hong Kong University Library on 23 January 2011)

Page of

Choy Dick Wan and Fu Hualing, “Cross-Border Relation in Criminal Matters in Mark Gaylord, Danny Gittings and Harold Traver, Introduction to Crime, Law and Justice in Hong Kong (Hong Kong, Hong Kong University Press, July 2009), at p. 223.

Chau Pak-Kwan and Stephen Lam in Research Study on the Agreement between Hong Kong and the Mainland concerning Surrender of Fugitive Offenders (Hong Kong: Research and Library Services Division, Legislative Council Secretariat, 2001.), at p. 43; Gao Mingxuan, Xingfaxue Yuanli (Principles of Criminal Law)Vol.1( Beijing,Zhongguo Renmin Daxue Chubanshe, 1993) at p.77.

Ibid.

Ibid pp.44-45; FU Hualing, “Relevance of Chinese Criminal Law to Hong Kong and Its Residents” (1998) 27 Hong Kong Law Journal 229,230-238.

See note 3 above, at pages 44-45.

Leung Elsie, “Viewing the Jurisdiction Issue from a Proper Perspective” (Hong Kong Law Journal, http://www.hk-lawyer.com/InnerPages_features/0/160/1999/1, 25 January 2011). Last accessed on 10 March 2011; See note 3 above, at pp 52-53.

See note 3 above, at page 67.

Yash Ghai, Hong Kong New Constitutional Order (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press,2nd edn, 1999), p 50.

Article 19 of The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

Article 18 of The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

See note 1 above, at page 224.

Fu Fualing, “The Form and Subtance of Legal Interaction Between Hong Kong and Mainland China: Towards Hong Kong’s New Legal Sovereignty” in R. Wacks(ed), The New Legal Order in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Hong Kong Unverisity Press, 1999), pp 96-97.

Fu Fualing, “The Battle of Criminal Jurisdiction” (1998) 28 Hong Kong Lawyer 273, 275.

Wong Kam C, “Legal and Political Implications of a “Cross-border Crime””(1999) China Perspectives 41, 41. ; See note 3 above, at page 54.

See note 3 above, at page 55.

Ibid.

Article 6 (1) of Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (1997 Version).

Mark S. Gaylord, “Cross-border Crime and legal jurisdiction in post-colonial Hong Kong” (1999) 31 Crime, Law & Social Change 31, 41-42.

See note 3 above, at page 57.

Ibid.

See note 3 above, at page 47.

See note 19 above, at page 44.

See note 3 above, at age 55.

See note 15 above, at page 44.

Article 6(3) of Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (1997 Version); See note 3 above, at page 49.

See note 3 above, at page 56.

See note 7 above.

Ibid.

Richard Cullen and Fu Hualing, “Some Limitations in the Basic Law Exposed” (1999) China Perspective 31,55.

Ibid.

Priscilla MF Leung, “Big Spender’ Cheung Tze Keung: A Brief Analysis” (1999) Hong Kong Lawyer.

Margaret Ng, “The Protection of Justice under Hong Kong’s System of Laws” (1998) Hong Kong Lawyer.; see also note 3 above, at page 57.

See note 3 above, at page 61.; please see also note 15 above, at page 41.

Article 7 of Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China (1997 Version).

See note 3 above, at page 62.

Ibid.

Bing Ling, “Applicability of the PRC Criminal Law in Hong Kong and the prospect of a rendition agreement between Hong Kong and the Mainland” (1999) 29 Hong Kong Lawyer 393, 399-401; Bing Ling, “Neidi yu xianggang xingshi quanxiaquan Chongtu ji yindu wenti yanjiu (A study on the Conflict of Criminal Jurisdiction between the Mainland and Hong Kong and the Problem of Extradition)”in Zhao Bingzhi(ed), Shiji Dajiean: Zhang Ziqang Anjian jiqi Falu Sikao –Zhongguo Neidi yu Xianggang Xingshi Guanxiaquan Chongtu Wenti (Robbery of the Century: The Case of Cheung Tze –keung and its Legal Considerations – the Problem of Conflict of Criminal Jurisdiction between Mainland China and Hong Kong) (Beijing: China Fangzheng Press, 2000), p331; see also note 3 above, page 62.

See note 3 above, page 63.

Ibid; Bing Ling, “Neidi yu xianggang xingshi quanxiaquan Chongtu ji yindu wenti yanjiu (A study on the Conflict of Criminal Jurisdiction between the Mainland and Hong Kong and the Problem of Extradition)”[ note 41 above] page 332.

Zhao Bingzhi & Tian Hongjie, “Zhongguo neidi yu xianggang xingshi guanxiaquan chongtu yanjiu-you Zhang Ziqiang anjian yinfa de sikao(Research on the conflict of criminal jurisdiction between Mainland China and Hong Kong- reflections on the case of Cheung Tze-keung)” in Zhao Bingzhi(ed), Shiji Dajiean: Zhang Ziqang Anjian jiqi Falu Sikao –Zhongguo Neidi yu Xianggang Xingshi Guanxiaquan Chongtu Wenti (Robbery of the Century: The Case of Cheung Tze –keung and its Legal Considerations – the Problem of Conflict of Criminal Jurisdiction between Mainland China and Hong Kong) (Beijing: China Fangzheng Press, 2000), p 232. ; see also note 3 above, at page 63.

Ibid pp 231-232; see also note 3 above, page 64.

Ibid.

Bing Ling, “Applicability of the PRC Criminal Law in Hong Kong and the prospect of a rendition agreement between Hong Kong and the Mainland” (1999) 29 Hong Kong Law Journal 393, 409.

Ibid.

Bing Ling, “Applicability of the PRC Criminal Law in Hong Kong and the prospect of a rendition agreement between Hong Kong and the Mainland” (1999) 29 Hong Kong Law Journal 393, 410; see also note 1 above, at page 236.

Bing Ling, “Applicability of the PRC Criminal Law in Hong Kong and the prospect of a rendition agreement between Hong Kong and the Mainland” [note 53 above] p 410.

See note 1 above, at page 236.

See note 54 above.

Ibid.

See note 54 above, at page 411.

Ibid.

Ibid; see also note 3 above, at page 5.

See note 58 above.

Ibid.

Article 19 of The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

Ibid, see also note 58 above.

See note 58 above.

ibid.

Ibid.

See note 3 above, at page 57.

Ibid.

See note 3 above, at page 66.

Ibid.

See note 3 above, at page 70.

Ibid.

See note 32 above.

Ibid.

See note 3 above, page 70.

Ibid, page 24.

See note 30 above, at page 44.

See note 3 above, at pages 79-80.

See Note 3 above, at page 79.

Ibid.

Section (1)(a) of the Fugitives Offenders Ordinance.

Article 39 (1) of The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

Article 2 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance; see also Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Article 3 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance; see also Article 7 of t he International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

See note 3 above, at page 84.

Section (5)(a) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance.

Section (5)(c) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance.

See note 3 above, at page 84.

See note 3 above, at pages 85-90.

See note 54 above, at page 421.

See note 51 above.

See note 54 above, at page 412.

See note 3 above, at page 66.

See note 54 above, at page 418.

See note 98 above, at page 179.

See note 103 above.

Fu Hualing “One Country and Two Systems: Will Hong Kong and the Mainland Reach an Agreement on Rendition” (1999) Hong Kong Lawyer.

See note 3 above, at pages 29-42.

Hong Kong Constitutional Law - in order to combat cross-border crime in an effective way, clear principles and details on practice as to under which conditions suspects should be transferred between Hong Kong and the Mainland is essential.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

Hong Kong

Hong Kong: Pre-China takeover.

Inefficiencies in Hong Kong Minority Shareholders Protection Provisions

What were the attitudes of Great Britain, China and Hong Kong to the hand o...