Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
| Published date | 01 February 1991 |
| Date | 01 February 1991 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839105500105 |
| Subject Matter | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council |
JUDICIAL
COMMITTEE
OF
THE
PRIVY
COUNCIL
EXTRADITION, CONSPIRACY AND THE INTERNATIONAL DRUG
TRADE
Liangsiriprasert VUS Government
United States law enforcement undercover agents were sent to
Thailand to meet the man who was eventually the appellant in
Liangsiriprasert v US Government [1990] 2 All
ER
866, who
was suspected of being engaged in international drug trafficking
between Thailand and the United States. After many meetings
between the appellant and the agents, it was agreed that the drugs
would be delivered in Thailand to the agents, who would fly them
to the United States in the diplomatic bag. This was done. As
there was no extradition treaty between the two countries relating
to drugs, the agents suggested that the appellant come to Hong
Kong, where he would be paid. He was arrested there and his
extradition to the United States was sought by the United States
Government. The magistrate committed him to await extradition
and that decision was affirmed in the High Court and Court of
Appeal of Hong Kong. On appeal to the Judicial Committee of
the Privy Council, a number of issues were raised and pronounced
upon by the Board, with the result that the magistrate's orders
were varied.
The appellant had submitted that the agents were not in law co-
conspirators of the drug smugglers. The United States Government
did not oppose that submission, which was consequently accepted
in the Hong Kong courts. But the Board pointed out that this was
not an easy question, for, although the agents were not co-
conspirators to the plan to sell heroin on the streets of the United
States, they had agreed to break the law, and had broken the law
by unlawfully importing drugs into the United States. They were
therefore co-conspirators to a plan to traffic in drugs, as the
Australian courts have pointed out in similar circumstances: see
Australia v Hayden (1984) 156
CLR
532 and R v Chow (1987) 30
90
To continue reading
Request your trial