Dr.
Harris: I am grateful, and I take no credit because the
correction was supplied to me. I suggested two changes, and I presume
the Minister is referring to the one that retains the Council decision
but moves it to the 20th instead of the 12th. I presume that that is
the change that he is accepting, rather than the one that would move it
to June
2007. 12.45
pm
Mr.
Coaker: Yes, that is correct, and I hope that it is
helpful. It will be changed as a matter of drafting rather than as an
amendment. I
think we all agree that the UK becoming a member of Schengen
information system will be helpful. We need to continue to receive and
transmit information by electronic means outside the new SIS II. I hope
that the hon. Member for Hornchurch accepts that and that he will
withdraw his
amendment.
James
Brokenshire: I am grateful for the Minister’s
helpful explanation and clarification. In the light of his comments, I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Clause
48 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
49 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
50Extradition
to category 1
territory
Mr.
Coaker: I beg to move amendment 212, in clause 50,
page 63, line 6, leave out from
“if” to “is charged” in line 8 and insert
“— (a) a person has been
brought before the appropriate judge under section 4(3) or 6(2) but the
extradition hearing has not begun;
and (b) the judge is informed
that the
person”.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take
Government amendments 213 to 223.
Mr.
Coaker: The Extradition Act 2003 provides for the judge
presiding over an extradition hearing to defer the proceedings when the
person is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence in the UK. In most
cases, that will prove to be unproblematic, but there is a loophole in
the law because if the requested person consents to extradition, the
2003 Act provides for there to be no extradition hearing or for any
such hearing to be brought to an end. That means that if an individual
has consented to extradition, it is not possible for the extradition
proceedings to be deferred until the conclusion of domestic proceedings
or until a UK sentence has been served. In practice, it could be
possible for someone to avoid justice in the UK by consenting to
extradition.
Clauses 50
and 51 address that problem by allowing the judge to defer proceedings
on an extradition request at any point from the date of arrest until
the start of the extradition hearing. Government amendments 212 to 223
make some minor changes to ensure that the provisions are fully
effective. The Committee will note that the 12 amendments
consist of six identical amendments to each of the two parts of the
2003 Act, part 1 of which deals with extradition requests from EU
territories and part 2 of which concerns requests from non-EU
territories. Notably,
the amendments will ensure that when the extradition court adjourns
consideration of an extradition request until a UK sentence has been
served, it does not have to deal with a remand hearing every 28 days.
That mirrors the approach in sections 23 and 89 of the 2003 Act and
avoids the court having to schedule unnecessary hearings when someone
whose extradition has been deferred is serving a lengthy custodial
sentence in the UK. The amendments will ensure that the framework in
place to deal with deferring an extradition request is robust, fair and
effective. Amendment
212 agreed
to. Amendments
made: 213, in
clause 50, page 63, line 9, leave
out “on the Part 1 warrant to be deferred” and
insert “in respect of the
extradition to be
adjourned”. Amendment
214, in
clause 50, page 63, line 18, leave
out ‘on the Part 1 warrant to be deferred’ and
insert ‘in respect of the
extradition to be
adjourned’. Amendment
215, in
clause 50, page 63, line 23, leave
out from ‘if’ to ‘is in custody’ in line 25
and insert ‘— (a) a person
has been brought before the appropriate judge under section 4(3) or
6(2) but the extradition hearing has not begun;
and (b) the judge is informed
that the
person’. Amendment
216, in
clause 50, page 63, line 27, leave
out ‘on the Part 1 warrant to be deferred’ and
insert ‘in respect of the
extradition to be
adjourned’. Amendment
217, in
clause 50, page 63, line 29, after
‘otherwise).’
insert— ‘(3) In a case where
further proceedings in respect of the extradition are adjourned under
subsection (2)— (a)
section 131 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (remand of
accused already in custody) has effect as if a reference to 28 clear
days in subsection (1) or (2) of that section were a reference to six
months; (b) Article 47(2) of
the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (period of
remand in custody) has effect as if a reference to 28 days
in—
(i) sub-paragraph (a)(iii),
or (ii) the words after
sub-paragraph (b), were a
reference to six months.’.—(Mr.
Coaker.) Question
proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the
Bill.
Dr.
Harris: I wish to raise a point on behalf of Justice
relating to how the Bill amends to the Extradition Act in relation to
the detail of a sentence that has been served. The matter is covered by
clause 50, and I believe that the point remains relevant despite the
Government’s
amendments. The
Bill’s amendments to sections of the Extradition Act would
replace the current deferral period, which is until the sentence has
been served, with:
“until the
person is released from detention pursuant to the sentence (whether on
licence or
otherwise).” If
a person is released from custody on licence, their sentence has not
been served and they are subject to recall. A licence can be made
subject to any number of conditions, and where a condition is breached
the prisoner can be recalled to prison. Furthermore, the insertion of
“or otherwise” is worryingly vague; in that form, it
could encompass temporary release. Is the wording as drafted
appropriate, since it gives a finite period? Will the Minister comment
on that
concern? In
a separate point, neither the current provisions nor the
Government’s proposals indicate when a judge should exercise his
or her power to defer. For example, when a person is already serving a
sentence of imprisonment, one could argue that it should not be
disrupted unless that person consents or the issuing state agrees to
the person serving their sentence in the UK. It is not clear whether
the Government are giving the court an indication of what it should do
in that
respect.
Mr.
Coaker: The hon. Gentleman’s last point is a matter
for the court to determine. The provision is not prescriptive; the hon.
Gentleman has read the Bill and the clause’s wording, which is
that “the judge may order”. It is not a case of the judge
must do this or that; there is flexibility. Let me take the judicial
side of the argument by stating that it is a matter for the judiciary,
and judicial oversight of the clause will determine what is appropriate
in the circumstances of each individual case.
Under
proposed new section (8A)(3) of the Extradition Act, a judge may order
further proceedings to be deferred, but he does not have to if that
does not serve the interests of justice. It is not the judge must, but
that he may do so. Rather than letting the Government determine what is
appropriate in the circumstances of every individual case at a
particular point in proceedings, the clause gives the flexibility that
I think the hon. Gentleman is looking
for. In
response to the hon. Gentleman’s first point, the amended
wording is necessary to ensure that it is absolutely clear that a
decision on extradition will be deferred until someone falls to be
released from detention, rather than until the end of any licensed
period. The words “or otherwise” cover the position where
someone falls to be released from custody, but is not released on
licence. That is necessary to cover sentences where release from
detention is unconditional. Clause 52(10) makes it plain that temporary
release, which is properly described as a
release pursuant to an intermittent custody order, is excluded from the
scope of the provisions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied
with that explanation and able to support the
clause. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 50,
as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
51Extradition
to category 2
territory Amendments
made: 218, in
clause 51, page 63, line 34, leave
out from ‘if’ to ‘is charged’ in line 35
and insert ‘— (a) a person
has been brought before the appropriate judge under section 72(3) or
74(3) but the extradition hearing has not begun;
and (b) the judge is informed
that the
person’. Amendment
219, in
clause 51, page 63, line 37, leave
out ‘on the request to be deferred’ and insert
‘in respect of the extradition to
be
adjourned’. Amendment
220, in
clause 51, page 64, line 3, leave
out ‘on the request to be deferred’ and insert
‘in respect of the extradition to
be
adjourned’. Amendment
221, in
clause 51, page 64, line 8, leave
out from ‘if’ to ‘is in custody’ in line 9
and insert ‘— (a) a person
has been brought before the appropriate judge under section 72(3) or
74(3) but the extradition hearing has not begun;
and (b) the judge is informed
that the
person’. Amendment
222, in
clause 51, page 64, line 12, leave
out ‘on the request to be deferred’ and insert
‘in respect of the extradition to
be
adjourned’. Amendment
223, in
clause 51, page 64, line 14, after
‘otherwise).’
insert— ‘(3) In a case where
further proceedings in respect of the extradition are adjourned under
subsection (2)— (a)
section 131 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 (remand of
accused already in custody) has effect as if a reference to 28 clear
days in subsection (1) or (2) of that section were a reference to six
months; (b) Article 47(2) of
the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (period of
remand in custody) has effect as if a reference to 28 days
in— (i) sub-paragraph
(a)(iii), or (ii) the words
after sub-paragraph (b), were a
reference to six months.’.—(Mr.
Coaker.) Clause
51, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
52 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
53Return
from category 1
territory
James
Brokenshire: I beg to move amendment 253, in
clause 53, page 65, line 27, at
end insert ‘save that
time during which the person was outside the United Kingdom shall be
disregarded for the purposes of consideration for parole or early
release in any event.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 254, in
clause 54, page 66, line 32, at
end insert ‘save that
time during which the person was outside the United Kingdom shall be
disregarded for the purposes of consideration for parole or early
release in any
event.’.
James
Brokenshire: Clause 53 deals with the treatment of time
served outside the UK following extradition to a category 1 territory
where the person was already serving a sentence of imprisonment in this
country. It provides that extradition will count as time served against
the sentence in the UK where the person was extradited for the purposes
of being prosecuted for an offence and was held in custody.
The effect of
the provisions and, indeed, existing section 59 of the Extradition Act
2003, is to provide that sentences will be served, in effect,
concurrently, rather than consecutively, should some form of custody be
required in the third-party state. Through amendment 253, which is more
a probing amendment than anything else, I seek to understand better and
to question how the provision operates in relation to the
Government’s early release scheme and, more generally, the
rehabilitation of offenders and release on
licence. If
the person extradited from the UK to an overseas territory is returned
to the UK following the determination of proceedings in the overseas
territory, what assessment is made of their suitability for early
release? Obviously, the party will have been outside the jurisdiction,
and there is a question whether normal early release provisions would
apply. Equally, what information is provided to enable judgments on the
need for release, which might need to be made almost instantaneously,
to be undertaken, to enable other protective arrangements to be put in
place, and to ensure that appropriate arrangements with probation
services and so on are likely to be adhered to
properly? Subsection
(4) talks about the person’s period in custody in the overseas
territory counting. Is the intention that there should be any broad
equivalence of the type of custody involved? The Minister will accept
that there may be a difference in the nature of the custody that will
be taken into account for someone being released from a category B
prison on extradition to a third party state. If we are to try to
rehabilitate to prevent reoffending, appropriate rehabilitative systems
need to be in place. If extradition is taking place part-way through a
sentence, how does that interrelate with rehabilitative programmes and
with the Government’s early release
scheme?
| 
