Minutes
RESTRICTED
Mr. Donlan said they and Counsel (Mr. Matthew) would appear to represent the Government of Qatar.
Albal
(R.A.G. Clark) 17 March, 1966
Mr. Watts.
On Friday, 18 March attended a consultation in Mr. Mathew's chambers: I was accompanied by Mr. Donlan of Charles Russell & Company.
2. Mr. Mathew explained the arguments which had been put forward by Mr. Du Cann. Certain preliminary points could be disposed of fairly quickly. First Mr. Du Cann had accepted that the words in the preamble to the 1949 Qatar Order, read with Article 12 of the Order, were sufficient to amount to an exercise of the power given by Section 36 of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881; but he argued that the change in the wording of Article 12 in the 1953 and 1959 Qatar Orders precluded their being made in part under Section 36 of that Act. Our inclination was to accept that it would be extremely difficult to argue that Section 36 was being used in the 1959 Order. Second, Mr. Du Cann pointed out that in paragraph 3 of the first schedule to the Qatar Order 1959 the correct formula was used in relation to the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act 1884, and this emphasised the significance of the absence of any such formula in relation to the Fugitive Offenders Act. pointed out however that the Colonial Prisioners Removal Act 1884 was not referred to in the first schedule to the Foreign Jurisdiction Act 1890, and therefore the treatment of Qatar as a British possession for the purposes of that Act hade to be done by virtue of Section 15 of that Act and not by virtue of Section 5 of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act.
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
3. Mr. Du Cann's main point, however, was that by virtue of the preamble to
/the
RESTRICTED
