Pre-Lisbon Treaty EU police and criminal justice measures: the UK's opt-in decision - Home Affairs Committee Contents

2  The European Arrest Warrant

7.  The Council Framework Decision for the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) has been in place for over 11 years. Its purpose was to speed up the extradition process between Member States, which had previously been governed by the Council of Europe's 1957 European Convention on Extradition. The EAW replaced the traditional extradition procedures set out in the Convention with a system of surrender based on the principle of mutual recognition and trust in the judicial authorities of Member States, reducing the potential for political involvement in the process.[8] The EAW is arguably the most controversial of the measures proposed in the Government's opt-in package. In this Chapter we consider the case for and against opting back into the Framework Decision, and examine the Government's proposed reforms to the EAW.

The case for the European Arrest Warrant

8.  A key part of the rationale for the EAW was that the free movement of people within the EU required effective extradition arrangements to prevent criminals from evading justice. Various witnesses told us that the EAW had succeeded in increasing the speed and reducing the administrative cost of extraditing EU citizens. The Government's Command Paper states that an extradition under the EAW now takes on average three months, whereas it requires approximately 10 months on average for a non-EU jurisdiction.[9] The Home Secretary and the Director of Public Prosecutions highlighted the example of one of the failed 21 July bombers, Hussain Osman, who was extradited from Italy in less than eight weeks, and was subsequently tried and convicted.[10] The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) cited the case of Jason McKay, who was convicted last year for the manslaughter of his girlfriend, Michelle Creed.[11] He initially went on the run to Poland before handing himself in at Warsaw police station. He was extradited back to the UK and put before a court within four weeks of leaving the country. Earlier this year, one of the UK's most wanted men, Mark Lilley, was arrested and extradited from Spain. He was the 51st fugitive arrested as part of the National Crime Agency's Operation Captura, targeting UK suspects believed to be hiding in Spain, a country which before the advent of the EAW had become a renowned safe haven for British criminals.[12] These examples contrast starkly with the extradition under the previous arrangements of Algerian Rachid Ramda highlighted by former Home Secretary, Charles Clarke.[13] Based in the UK and wanted by the French authorities for his role in the 1995 Paris Metro bombing, his return took 10 years to agree.

9.  In the opt-out debate on 15 July 2013, the Home Secretary told the House that in the last four years the EAW had been used to extradite from the UK 57 suspects for child sex offences, 86 for rape and 105 for murder. In the same period, 63 suspected child sex offenders, 27 suspected rapists and 44 suspected murderers were extradited back to the UK to face charges.[14] She argued that a number of these suspects would probably never have been extradited without the EAW and in cases where they were extradited, the process would almost certainly have taken longer than under the previous arrangements. This reduction in the length of the extradition process arising from the EAW not only benefits victims by ensuring rapid justice, it also works in favour of those people who consent to their extradition who might otherwise have spent many months in pre-trial detention before being extradited,[15] although it is not clear why other extradition processes could not be curtailed by consent.

10.  ACPO told us that the UK also benefits from the EAW because it is an attractive destination for criminals.[16] In London, 28 per cent of people arrested are foreign nationals of which half are from the EU. The vast majority of UK surrenders to other EU countries under the EAW are non-UK citizens—95 per cent of over 4,000 extraditions in the four years to April 2013. In other words, most outward EAWs concern other Member States seeking their own citizens for crimes committed back home. This is not quite the case for extraditions to the UK, where just over half of the 507 people surrendered were British nationals.

11.  Furthermore, in recent years there has been a marked increase in the internationalisation of crime, facilitated by changes in technology and EU expansion. For example, Europol has highlighted a "travelling criminal gang phenomenon" whereby groups based in Eastern Europe, particularly Romania and Bulgaria, use low-cost airlines to travel abroad to commit offences, returning before they can be caught.[17] The EAW could play an important role in tackling this new form of crime.

12.  Overall, a number of our witnesses supported the UK's continued participation in the EAW.[18] ACPO described it as "an essential weapon", whilst Europol told us it is "a modern, swift, cheap way of dealing with a serious criminal problem in the UK" and "it has transformed the nature of international police co-operation".[19]

The case against the European Arrest Warrant

13.  Although the EAW system has streamlined the extradition process, it has a number of flaws, and its benefits have come at a heavy price for people who have experienced severe injustice as a result of the current arrangements. We heard moving evidence from two such individuals. Andrew Symeou was extradited to Greece in July 2009 to face charges in connection with the death of a young man at a nightclub on a Greek island. He was extradited despite evidence that the charges were based on statements extracted by the Greek police through violent intimidation of witnesses who subsequently retracted their statements.[20] He spent 11 months in a Greek jail in appalling conditions before being released on bail. Even then he was prevented from leaving the country until he was cleared by the Greek court in June 2011. He told the Committee: "You cannot imagine what it has done to me and what it has done to my family. It has changed our lives and it is unacceptable".[21]

14.  Garry Mann is a former fireman who was arrested in Portugal during the Euro 2004 football tournament when a riot broke out in a nearby street. Using a temporary fast-track procedure established ahead of Euro 2004 to tackle football hooliganism, he was arrested, tried and convicted in less than 24 hours. He told us how he had been unable to instruct a lawyer, and could not understand or participate in the proceedings due to the poor quality of the translation provided by a woman who subsequently turned out to be a local hairdresser who knew the wife of the judge.[22] The Portuguese authorities told Mr Mann his sentence would not be carried out provided he accepted voluntary deportation, which he did, returning to the UK shortly afterwards. However, in 2009 he was arrested under a EAW and returned to Portugal to serve a two-year sentence. A failure by his lawyers to lodge an appeal in time meant the judge was powerless to prevent his extradition.[23] He spent a year in a Portuguese prison before returning to the UK under a prisoner transfer agreement, where he served another three months in Wandsworth Prison.

15.  The experiences of Andrew Symeou and Garry Mann are not unique—a number of British citizens have suffered similar injustices. As the Home Secretary said in the debate on 15 July, "when extradition arrangements are wrong, they can have a detrimental effect on our civil liberties".[24] The core of the problem is that the EAW is a mutual co-operation instrument that is based on the principle of mutual recognition. This means that if one Member State makes a decision to extradite an individual to face a trial or serve a sentence, that decision must be respected and applied throughout the EU. Difficulties arise, however, because the justice systems of Member States vary significantly in their practice. One aspect of this is the use of EAWs by some countries at an earlier stage than that at which the UK would apply for one. Whereas the UK will not issue a warrant until it is 'prosecution-ready', some Member States will seek an EAW for questioning to aid a decision on whether to charge, or long before the relevant court is ready to try the individual concerned.[25] This was the case with Andrew Symeou. Furthermore, once charged, non-nationals are often at a disadvantage in obtaining bail because they are seen as a greater flight risk. Andrew Symeou summed it up: "I was extradited because we are European but I was put in prison because I am British".[26] These factors can result in prolonged periods of pre-trial detention. This is particularly concerning given some EU countries have no legal maximum length for such detention.

16.  Another way in which justice systems vary is in the proportionality tests applied in different Member States when considering whether to prosecute. Whereas in the UK prosecutors can exercise discretion in determining whether to apply for an EAW, the authorities in Poland, for example, have no such prosecutorial discretion.[27] Furthermore, in Poland sentencing guidelines are such that it is relatively easy to receive a custodial sentence of four months—the minimum threshold at which an EAW may be requested.[28] This means that a large number of warrants are issued for relatively minor offences. Examples have included extraditions to Poland in connection with exceeding a credit card limit, piglet rustling, and the theft of a wheelbarrow, some wardrobe doors, a small teddy bear, and a pudding.[29]

17.  Tables 1 and 2 below show the number of warrants issued and received by Member States and the resulting number of surrenders in each case. There are a range of reasons why the issuing of an EAW may not lead to a surrender, including a number of mandatory and optional grounds set out in the EAW Framework Decision. Table 1 and 2 also show the effects of differences in practice between Member States. The UK issued fewer EAWs than Latvia or Estonia in 2011 and secured a surrender rate that was higher than most other countries, arguably as a consequence of the requirement for prosecution-readiness and prosecutorial discretion. In contrast, it was one of the largest recipients of EAWs. This reflects both the practice of countries such as Poland, but also the attractiveness of the UK as a destination. In recent years, the UK and Polish authorities have worked together to reduce the number of EAWs issued by Poland. This has had some success, with a 25 per cent reduction since 2008, though the overall number of warrants, at 775 in 2012, still remains high.[30]

Table 1: Number of European Arrest Warrants issued by Member States and corresponding surrenders in 2011
Total number of EAWs issued by a Member State to all other EU countries
Total number of resulting surrenders
Percentage of EAWs issued that lead to a surrender
Czech Republic
Slovak Republic

Source: Council of the European Union, Replies to questionnaire on quantitative information on the practical operation of the European Arrest Warrant - Year 2011

Table 2: Number of European Arrest Warrants received by each Member State and corresponding surrenders in 2011
Total number of EAWs received by each Member State from all other EU countries
Total number of resulting surrenders
Percentage of EAWs issued that lead to a surrender
Czech Republic

Source: Council of the European Union, Replies to questionnaire on quantitative information on the practical operation of the European Arrest Warrant - Year 2011

18.  The Government estimates that the unit cost of executing an incoming EAW in the UK is approximately £20,000. This includes costs to the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, court and legal aid costs, as well as detention before extradition.[31] If this is the case, then the estimated cost of implementing the 999 incoming EAWs in 2011 was just under £20 million. In addition to this would have been the cost of the 5,761 EAWs that did not lead to a surrender, but would nevertheless have incurred costs to the justice system.

19.  Not only are there differences in the structure of justice systems between Member States, but also standards of justice vary significantly within those systems. Fair Trials International told us: "there is not a sound basis for mutual trust, not least because basic fair trial rights are not protected adequately in many EU countries".[32] This was one of the underlying problems for both Andrew Symeou and Garry Mann. In the former case it was reflected in the manner in which evidence was collected against him by the Greek police and his subsequent treatment in prison. In the latter case it arose in the form of inadequate arrangements for representation and translation at his trial in Portugal, and because his lawyers lacked sufficient training in how the EAW process operates.[33] The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the EAW is a procedural mechanism that does not require the receiving court to consider a prima facie case before executing a warrant.[34] Dominic Raab MP told us the false assumption of common standards across the EU has deeply undermined faith in the EAW system, not only in the UK, but also among other northern European countries.[35]

20.  Because of differences in the standards of justice between Member States, many individuals have sought to prevent their extradition on human rights grounds. The Extradition Act 2003 requires the judge at an extradition hearing to discharge the requested person if they are of the view that execution of an EAW would result in a breach of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to which all EU Member States are signatories. To date, the main Articles used to challenge an EAW have been 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of torture), 6 (right to a fair trial) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life).

21.  Although the Government's Command Paper states that a range of safeguards are in place to ensure the protection of fundamental rights, a particular concern for challenges based on the ECHR is that the standard of proof required is considered very high. For example, Fair Trials International told us that in practice "the courts apply principles elaborated by the European Court of Human Rights which impose virtually unachievable evidential and legal hurdles".[36] In Andrew Symeou's case it was argued that his treatment in a Greek prison would breach his Article 3 rights (under the inhuman or degrading treatment provision). However, the judge concluded that there was no sound evidence that he was at risk of being subjected to treatment that would breach Article 3, even though there was evidence that some police do inflict such treatment on those in detention.[37]

Alternatives to the European Arrest Warrant

22.  Prior to the introduction of the EAW, extradition arrangements between EU Member States were governed by the 1957 European Convention on Extradition. 50 countries are signatories to the Convention—the 47 members of the Council of Europe, plus Israel, South Africa and South Korea. If the UK left the EAW the initial default would be to return to the arrangements set out under the Convention. As noted earlier in this Chapter, one of the main concerns with the previous system was the time taken to agree extradition. The Director of Public Prosecutions told us it would likely take much longer to resolve extradition proceedings if the UK reverted to the Convention.[38] Other problems include the fact that some countries did not extradite their own citizens under the old arrangements. The Government's Command Paper notes that some Member States repealed the legislation implementing the 1957 Convention when they introduced the EAW. In the case of Ireland there is no fallback position because it never brought the Convention into force, and the 'backing of warrants' legislation that was used instead has since been repealed.[39]

23.  However, as Fair Trials International argued, it is likely that "other Member States will continue to wish to engage in effective extradition arrangements with the UK, whether or not we remain a part of the EAW system".[40] In practice this would mean agreeing new bilateral arrangements on a country-by-country basis, or with the EU, given that it has gained legal personality under the Lisbon Treaty.[41] Dominic Raab MP argued that there had been a significant amount of "scaremongering" of the consequences of leaving the EAW, both in terms of the extent to which new arrangements might lead to delays, and the possibility that criminals might go free. He was optimistic that the UK would be able to negotiate enhanced procedures that sat somewhere between the Convention and the EAW.[42]

24.  Former Home Secretary Charles Clarke was sceptical that it would be possible to negotiate new arrangements, noting that one of the reasons why some cases in the past went on for so long was because such bilateral arrangements had not been agreed.[43] Justice Across Borders also told us it did not believe new bilateral or multilateral arrangements outside the EU framework would be as effective.[44] First, any negotiation would be fraught with difficulty and might not be prioritised by other Member States. If discrepancies occurred between implementing legislation, there would be no formal mechanism to resolve them. Second, the nature of negotiation means that the UK might not secure the arrangements that it wants. Other Member States could refuse to co-operate, or might seek concessions in other areas. Third, EU law may anyway prohibit Member States from agreeing individual arrangements with the UK. Finally, even if the UK were to reach bilateral agreements, differences in procedure might be exploited by criminals and potentially turn the UK into a safe haven for people seeking to evade justice (or at least give rise to the perception of it being so). Some argue that an agreement with the UK and the EU as the two contracting parties could alleviate these problems.

The Government's proposed reforms

25.  In her statement to the House on 9 July, the Home Secretary set out a number of measures designed both to reduce the number of EAWs and to improve the operation of the system in the UK.[45] Many of her proposals were a response to the 2011 review of the UK's extradition arrangements conducted by Sir Scott Baker.[46] First, the Government has committed to implement the European Supervision Order (ESO). This sets out rules by which Member States are required to recognise a decision on supervision measures issued by another Member State as an alternative to pre-trial detention. The UK was expected to enshrine the ESO in national law by 1 December 2012, but has yet to do so. It is another measure listed in the Government's opt-in package.[47] Various witnesses supported its implementation.[48] Fair Trials International argued that it could have a huge impact on people arrested abroad, who are often denied bail because they are non-nationals, though this would depend on how it was implemented by each Member State.[49] For example, it could have made a significant difference in the case of Andrew Symeou. ACPO described it as "a good counterbalance to the European Arrest Warrant", and anticipated that its implementation could easily be bolted on to the existing system of managing people on bail.[50] In their joint submission, the Law Societies of England and Wales and of Scotland expected that the ESO could be used for a relatively broad range of offences, particularly given the availability of new technology to monitor suspects under bail conditions.[51]

26.  A second key reform is that the Government has amended the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill to ensure that an EAW is refused for minor crimes, thereby introducing a proportionality test similar to the one operating in Germany and some other Member States. The majority of our witnesses, including the Director of Public Prosecutions, supported this proposal as a way of reducing the number of EAWs executed for countries such as Poland that do not have prosecutorial discretion.[52] However, Dr Hart-Hoenig, a lawyer operating in Germany, told us this change was not likely to influence the decision by judges in other Member States to continue issuing warrants.[53] This means UK courts may continue to process a large number of EAW requests, albeit granting fewer of them.

27.  Third, the Government hopes that use of the European Investigation Order (EIO) will reduce the need for EAWs. The EIO will create new evidence-gathering powers that will make it easier for police to investigate suspects living in other Member States. This should reduce the number of arrest warrants that are issued for the purpose only of interviewing suspects.[54] The Law Societies told us they supported this approach.[55] It is still subject to negotiation, though the Government has already decided to opt in to the measure. We note that several of the measures which it will supersede are not included in the Government's opt-in package, which may be relevant if the EIO is not adopted before 1 December 2014 when the opt-out will take effect.

28.  A related fourth measure is the Government's plan to amend the Extradition Act 2003 so that people in the UK can only be extradited under the EAW when the requesting Member State has already made a decision to charge and try them.[56] Although recognising that once a charge is made there could still be further delays in the proceedings, this should help reduce the number of incidences where an individual is held in detention for significant periods before their trial. An important caveat to this reform, though, is that it will not apply where a person's presence is required in a jurisdiction in order for decisions on charging and trying to be made. As such, it is difficult to determine what effect this change will have, although the Law Societies argued it would help prevent abuse of the EAW.[57] Andrew Symeou, however, noted the Greek authorities would likely have claimed they were trial-ready when they requested his extradition, even though he subsequently spent 11 months in jail awaiting his trial.[58]

29.  Other proposed reforms include changes to the law so that a judge must refuse extradition in cases where part of the alleged conduct took place in the UK, and it is not criminal in the UK. Elsewhere the Government plans to make greater use of prisoner transfer arrangements so that UK citizens convicted abroad can be returned to the UK to serve their sentences. Furthermore, where UK citizens have been convicted in their absence and are the subject of an EAW, the UK authorities will ask for the warrant to be withdrawn and to use the prisoner transfer arrangements instead. In addition, the Home Secretary plans either to allow the temporary transfer of a consenting person so that they can be interviewed by the issuing state's authorities, or to allow them to interview through means such as video-conferencing in the UK. Although not part of the package of reforms announced by the Home Secretary in July, the Government also plans to allow greater flexibility in the extradition appeals process so that cases may be considered after the deadline set within the EAW process has passed if the person concerned did everything reasonably possible to ensure that notice for appeal was given as soon as it could be given. Fair Trials International welcomed the inclusion of this provision in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill.[59]

30.  Overall, we received a range of views on the Government's EAW reform package. The Director of Public Prosecutions and ACPO both voiced their support.[60] Europol described the proposals as "sensible", whilst Professor Steve Peers of the University of Essex said the changes would address a number of problems, although they did not respond directly to human rights concerns.[61] Fair Trials International told us the reforms went in the right direction, but that they could still be strengthened.[62] Although both Andrew Symeou and Garry Mann noted that the package represented "a good start", they remained sceptical that it fully addressed their concerns and said they did not want the UK to opt in.[63] The lawyers who gave oral evidence to us were also unconvinced that the UK should opt back into the EAW even with the new safeguards.[64]

31.  Although the Government's proposed reforms were broadly welcomed during the debate on 16 July, a concern raised by some Members was the extent to which any changes made unilaterally by the UK might subsequently be struck down by the European Court of Justice.[65] The Law Societies raised concern as to whether the proportionality measure would be in accordance with the underlying EAW Framework Decision.[66] The fact that some of the changes, such as the proportionality measure, are already operated by some other Member States, may provide some reassurance on this issue. Nevertheless, there would remain some uncertainty on this point if the UK opted back in to the EAW until it was tested.[67]

32.  Witnesses suggested that one option for avoiding any potential infringement proceedings would be to amend the Framework Decision itself. Indeed, witnesses identified certain policy areas that would best be responded to by EU-wide agreement rather than the UK acting unilaterally.[68] Fair Trials International and the Law Societies called for the proportionality test to be incorporated as part of the Framework Decision. Other areas highlighted by Fair Trials International included giving the courts greater power to refuse the surrender of individuals on human rights grounds; requiring Member States to remove an EAW where it has been refused by the executing authority so that the individual concerned does not risk re-arrest whenever they cross an EU border; and the ability to defer extradition where a case is not trial-ready.[69] Elsewhere, Mr Dominic Raab MP and Liberty called for the requirement of an evidential threshold or prima facie case before a court could surrender someone under the EAW.[70] This too would require a change to the Framework Decision.

33.  The Director General of Europol cautioned against renegotiation of the EAW, arguing that the process would take time and would not necessarily lead to the outcome that the UK desired.[71] Charles Clarke, however, was more optimistic, believing that there was a willingness among Member States to look again at the current arrangements.[72] Fair Trials International pointed to the European Parliament's recent decision to produce an own-initiative report as an indication that the desire to reform the EAW was not restricted to the UK.[73]

34.  In the meantime there are further ways in which the UK can contribute to improving the operation of the EAW within the existing Framework Decision. In its recent report on the operation of the EAW, Justice recommended better provision of training for defence lawyers and the creation of a peer-reviewed database of experienced EAW lawyers.[74] It also urged Member States to act quickly to enshrine in national law Directive 2010/64/EU on the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings—a reform that could have made a crucial difference in the case of Garry Mann. Justice and the Law Societies also called for improvements to the Schengen Information System (SIS) to provide a mechanism for rectifying erroneous alerts.[75] For most Member States, the SIS is the primary means by which they are alerted that an EAW is in place. The UK is due to join the successor system—SIS II—at which point it is predicted that there will be a significant increase in the number of EAWs it receives.

35.  Finally, we heard evidence that a large number of EAWs received by the UK, particularly from Poland, relate to a breach of an individual's probation in the issuing country.[76] Many of these could be avoided if there was greater co-operation between Member States' probation systems. Indeed, Council Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA on the application of the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and probation decisions provides for such co-operation. This measure is not part of the Government's proposed opt-in package. Its Command Paper notes that the Framework Decision has not yet been implemented by the UK and that only seven Member States have done so to date.[77] Arguably though, implementation of the measure would increase once it falls within the scope of the European Commission's infringement powers in 2014. Justice, Justice Across Borders and Professor Steve Peers all supported the inclusion of the measure in the opt-in package in their evidence to this Committee.[78] The Ministry of Justice is responsible for this measure, which accordingly, is being scrutinised by our colleagues on the Justice Committee.

36.  The European Arrest Warrant has significantly reduced the time taken to process an extradition within the EU, and has played an important role in ensuring rapid justice in a number of high-profile and serious cases. The vast majority of warrants received by the UK are for non-UK citizens, reflecting a trend towards the internationalisation of crime. Law enforcement bodies both at a national and European level believe the EAW is an essential weapon in the fight against such crime.

37.  However, in its existing form, the EAW is fundamentally flawed. It is based on a system of mutual recognition of legal systems which in reality vary significantly. Some countries may seek extradition simply to expedite their investigations, whereas others do so in pursuit of relatively minor crimes. For these reasons the UK receives disproportionately more warrants than it issues. Not only does this undermine credibility in the system, it is also costly to the taxpayer. Furthermore, the EAW is based on a flawed assumption of mutual trust in the standards of justice in other Member States. As such, it has facilitated miscarriages of justice in a number of cases, irrevocably damaging the lives of those affected.

38.  The UK could opt out of the EAW and seek to agree new arrangements with the rest of the EU, though it is uncertain how successful it would be in doing so, and it is not the Government's preferred option. We therefore welcome and support the proposed reform package, which would go some way towards rectifying the problems highlighted. However, there remain further ways in which the EAW can be improved, both within the current Framework Decision, and through its renegotiation. We also note that there remains uncertainty as to whether unilateral reforms by the UK would be acceptable to the Commission in the context of the opt-in negotiations, or whether they would in the future be struck down by the European Court of Justice.

39.  The UK's membership of the EAW is the single most controversial aspect of the Government's opt-in package. In this Report we have discussed its pros and cons, but ultimately we believe it is for the House to determine the UK's ongoing membership. Accordingly, we recommend that the EAW be considered separately to the rest of the opt-in package by way of a debate and vote on a discrete motion. If the House votes in favour of the UK retaining the EAW, we further recommend that the Government seek agreement with other Member States for reform of the Framework Decision itself as part of the opt-in negotiations. If the House votes against the UK retaining the EAW, we recommend that the Government attempt to negotiate an agreement with the EU on an effective successor regime to safeguard the UK's interests.

8   HM Government, Decision pursuant to Article 10 of Protocol 36 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, July 2013, Cm 8671, page 94 Back

9   Ibid. Back

10   HC Deb, 15 July 2013, column 779, 2014 JHA Opt-Out Decision; Q 340 (Director of Public Prosecutions) Back

11   Q 40 (Association of Chief Police Officers) Back

12   Dr Julian Huppert MP, HC Deb, 15 July 2013, column 809, 2014 JHA Opt-Out Decision; Ev 59 (Justice Across Borders) para 9 Back

13   Q 268 (Charles Clarke) Back

14   HC Deb, 15 July 2013, column 779, 2014 JHA Opt-Out Decision Back

15   Q 170 (Professor Steve Peers, University of Essex) Back

16   Q 1 (Association of Chief Police Officers) Back

17   The Times, Romanians use cheap flights for crime spree, 4 October 2013, page 1 Back

18   Qq 170 (Professor Steve Peers, University of Essex), 180 (Justice); Ev 57 (Helen Malcolm QC) para 3, Ev 63 (Law Societies of England and Wales and of Scotland) para 8 Back

19   Qq 15 (Association of Chief Police Officers) and 77 and 78 (Europol) Back

20   Q 114 (Andrew Symeou) Back

21   Q 133 (Andrew Symeou) Back

22   Q 106 (Garry Mann) Back

23   Q 111 (Garry Mann) Back

24   HC Deb, 15 July 2013, column 778, 2014 JHA Opt-Out Decision Back

25   Qq 18 (Association of Chief Police Officers) 339 (Director of Public Prosecutions) Back

26   Q 128 (Andrew Symeou) Back

27   Qq 193 (Wojciech Andrew Zalewski) and 339 (Director of Public Prosecutions) Back

28   Q 193 (Wojciech Andrew Zalewski) Back

29   See for example, Council of Europe, EU Document 10975/07, 9 July 2007; Rzeczpospolita, Too long arm of justice, 28 April 2013; Mr James Clappison MP, HC Deb, 15 July 2013, column 822, 2014 JHA Opt-Out Decision Back

30   Ev 69 (Polish Ministry of Justice) Back

31   HM Government, Decision pursuant to Article 10 of Protocol 36 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, July 2013, Cm 8671, page 95 Back

32   Fair Trials International, Written evidence to the House of Lords European Union Committee inquiry into the 2014 JHA opt-in decision, para 12 Back

33   Q 180 (Justice) Back

34   Q 183 (Liberty) Back

35   Q 287 (Mr Dominic Raab MP) Back

36   Ev 58 (Fair Trials International) Back

37   Justice, International Commission of Jurists, and the European Criminal Bar Association, Best Evidence in European Arrest Warrant Cases, 2009, para 20 Back

38   Q 336 (Director of Public Prosecutions) Back

39   Ev 66 (Law Societies of England and Wales and of Scotland) para 22 Back

40   Fair Trials International, Written evidence to the House of Lords European Union Committee inquiry into the 2014 JHA opt-in decision, para 6 Back

41   Q 279 (Mr Dominic Raab MP) Back

42   Q 284 (Mr Dominic Raab MP) Back

43   Qq 269 and 271 (Charles Clarke) Back

44   Ev 59 (Justice Across Borders), para 4-9 Back

45   Oral Statement by the Home Secretary, HC Deb, 9 July 2013, column 177, Treaty on the Functioning of the EU Back

46   A Review of the United Kingdom's Extradition Arrangements (following Written Ministerial Statement by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of 8 September 2010), presented to the Home Secretary on 30 September 2011. We discussed the Baker Review at length in our Report on The US-UK Extradition Treaty (HC 644, Session 2010-12) Back

47   The Ministry of Justice is responsible for this measure Back

48   Q 192 (Fair Trials International, Justice, and Liberty); Ev 65 (Law Societies of England and Wales and of Scotland) para 15 Back

49   Fair Trials International, Written evidence to the House of Lords European Union Committee inquiry into the 2014 JHA opt-in decision, para 15  Back

50   Qq 22 and 24 (Association of Chief Police Officers) Back

51   Op. Cit. Back

52   Qq 28 (Association of Chief Police Officers), 171 (Prof Steve Peers, University of Essex), 338 (Director of Public Prosecutions); Ev 58 (Fair Trials International) and Ev 67 (Law Societies of England and Wales and of Scotland) para 25 Back

53   Q 211 (Dr Kai Hart-Hoenig) Back

54   Q 241 (Dr Kai Hart-Hoenig) Back

55   Ev 67 (Law Societies of England and Wales and of Scotland) para 29 Back

56   HC Deb, 15 July 2013, column 778, 2014 JHA Opt-Out Decision Back

57   Ev 68 (Law Societies of England and Wales and of Scotland) para 30 Back

58   Q 141 (Andrew Symeou) Back

59   Ev 58 (Fair Trials International)  Back

60   Qq 29 (Association of Chief Police Officers) and 333 (Director of Public Prosecutions) Back

61   Qq 77 (Europol) and 171 (Professor Steve Peers) Back

62   Q 184 (Fair Trials International) Back

63   Qq 139 (Garry Mann) and 141 (Andrew Symeou) Back

64   Qq 245 (Wojciech Andrew Zalewski) and 246 (Dr Kai Hart-Hoenig) Back

65   Mr Dominic Raab MP, HC Deb, 15 July 2013, column 829, 2014 JHA Opt-Out Decision; Mr James Clappison MP, column 843; and Jacob Rees-Mogg MP, column 843 Back

66   Ev 67 (Law Societies of England and Wales and of Scotland) para 26 Back

67   Q 164 (Professor Steve Peers, University of Essex) Back

68   Ibid.; Q 343 (Director of Public Prosecutions) Back

69   Fair Trials International, Written evidence to the House of Lords European Union Committee inquiry into the 2014 JHA opt-in decision, para 9 Back

70   Qq 183 (Liberty) and 289 (Mr Dominic Raab MP) Back

71   Q 77 (Europol) Back

72   Q 272 (Charles Clarke) Back

73   Ev 58 (Fair Trials International)  Back

74   Justice, European Arrest Warrants - Ensuring an effective defence, 2012 Back

75   Ibid.; Ev 67 (Law Societies of England and Wales and of Scotland) para 28 Back

76   Q 240 (Wojciech Andrew Zalewski); Ev 66 (Law Societies of England and Wales and of Scotland) para 17 Back

77   HM Government, Decision pursuant to Article 10 of Protocol 36 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, July 2013, Cm 8671, page 132 Back

78   Qq 154 (Professor Steve Peers, University of Essex) and 175 (Justice); Ev 61 (Justice Across Borders) para 24 Back

previous page contents next page

© Parliamentary copyright 2013
Prepared 31 October 2013