Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page



"RE-EXTRADITION TO CATEGORY 2 TERRITORIES
(1) If this section applies, this Act applies as it would if—
(a) a valid request for the person's extradition to the territory had been made;
(b) the request contained a statement that the person was alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of the relevant offence;
(c) the relevant offence were specified in the request;
(d) the hearing at which the appropriate judge is to make the decision referred to in section (Re-extradition hearing) (1) were the extradition hearing;
(e) the proceedings before the judge were under Part 2.
(2) As applied by subsection (1) this Act has effect with the modifications set out in Part 2 of Schedule (Re-extradition: modifications).
(3) The relevant offence is the offence in respect of which the overseas sentence is imposed."

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 249DA:



"CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE: ROLE IN EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS
(1) The Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c. 23) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 3 (functions of the Director) after subsection (2) insert—
"(2A) The Director may—
(a) have the conduct of any extradition proceedings;
(b) give, to such extent as he considers appropriate, and to such persons as he considers appropriate, advice on any matters relating to extradition proceedings or proposed extradition proceedings."
(3) In section 5(1) (conduct of prosecutions on behalf of Crown Prosecution Service) after "criminal proceedings" insert "or extradition proceedings".
(4) In section 14 (control of fees and expenses etc paid by the Service) in subsection (1)(a) after "criminal proceedings" insert "or extradition proceedings".
(5) In section 15(1) (interpretation of Part 1) in the appropriate place insert—
""extradition proceedings" means proceedings under the Extradition Act 2003;"."

The noble Lord said: The amendment simply seeks to put beyond doubt that the Crown Prosecution Service can act in extradition proceedings. The Committee may ask why, the Crown Prosecution Service having done so for many years, we are now spelling this out. It is merely because it has been pointed out that there is nothing in the statute to indicate that the CPS can act in extradition proceedings and we believe that it is prudent to put the issue beyond doubt by making a specific reference to it. Amendment No. 249E makes a similar provision for the Lord Advocate in Scotland and Amendment No. 249EA for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Solicitor in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: We have no particular problem with the amendments. Obviously extradition proceedings will involve co-operation between our legal system and that of the requesting

10 Sept 2003 : Column GC21

state and we welcome provisions in the Bill which state explicitly the role that the CPS may play in assisting such extradition proceedings.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Filkin moved Amendment Nos. 249E and 249EA:


    Before Clause 189, insert the following new clause—


"LORD ADVOCATE: ROLE IN EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS
The Lord Advocate may—
(a) conduct any extradition proceedings in Scotland;
(b) give, to such extent as he considers appropriate, and to such persons as he considers appropriate, advice on any matters relating to extradition proceedings or proposed extradition proceedings, in Scotland." Before Clause 189, insert the following new clause—


"NORTHERN IRELAND DPP AND CROWN SOLICITOR: ROLE IN EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS
(1) The Prosecution of Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I. 1972/538 (N.I. 1)) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4).
(2) In article 2(2) (interpretation) in the appropriate place insert—
""extradition proceedings" means proceedings under the Extradition Act 2003;".
(3) In article 4(7) (conduct of prosecutions on behalf of DPP) after "prosecution" insert "or extradition proceedings".
(4) In article 5 (functions of DPP) after paragraph (1) insert—
"(1A) The Director may—
(a) have the conduct of any extradition proceedings in Northern Ireland;
(b) give to such persons as appear to him appropriate such advice as appears to him appropriate on matters relating to extradition proceedings, or proposed extradition proceedings, in Northern Ireland."
(5) The Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 (c. 26) is amended as set out in subsections (6) to (8).
(6) After section 31 insert—
"31A CONDUCT OF EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS
(1) The Director may have the conduct of any extradition proceedings in Northern Ireland.
(2) The Director may give to such persons as appear to him appropriate such advice as appears to him appropriate on matters relating to extradition proceedings, or proposed extradition proceedings, in Northern Ireland."
(7) In section 36(2) (conduct of criminal proceedings on behalf of DPP) after "criminal proceedings" insert "or extradition proceedings".
(8) In section 44 (interpretation) after subsection (6) insert—
"(7) For the purposes of this Part "extradition proceedings" means proceedings under the Extradition Act 2003."
(9) The Crown Solicitor for Northern Ireland may—
(a) have the conduct of any proceedings under this Act in Northern Ireland;
(b) give to such persons as appear to him appropriate such advice as appears to him appropriate on matters relating to proceedings under this Act, or proposed proceedings under this Act, in Northern Ireland."

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 249F had been retabled as Amendment No. 249DA.]

10 Sept 2003 : Column GC22

Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 249G:


    Before Clause 189, insert the following new clause—


"SPECIAL EXTRADITION ARRANGEMENTS
(1) This section applies if the Secretary of State believes that—
(a) arrangements have been made between the United Kingdom and another territory for the extradition of a person to the territory, and
(b) the territory is not a category 1 territory or a category 2 territory.
(2) The Secretary of State may certify that the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) are satisfied in relation to the extradition of the person.
(3) If the Secretary of State issues a certificate under subsection (2) this Act applies in respect of the person's extradition to the territory as if the territory were a category 2 territory.
(4) As applied by subsection (3), this Act has effect—
(a) as if sections 70(4), 72(5), 73(10)(b), 83(6) and 85(6) were omitted;
(b) with any other modifications specified in the certificate.
(5) A certificate under subsection (2) in relation to a person is conclusive evidence that the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) are satisfied in relation to the person's extradition."

The noble Lord said: The amendment is very similar in purpose and drafting to our existing legislation and, in particular, Section 15 of the Extradition Act. What that section does, and what this new clause will do, is to enable the UK to respond to ad hoc extradition requests from countries with which we do not have general extradition arrangements. Such ad hoc requests are very rare indeed, and successful ones even more so. Indeed, to be blunt, we can find no record of a successful ad hoc request.

The reason for this is that we have extradition agreements with more than 100 countries but the ones with which we do not have them—often for good reasons—are the kinds of country which we believe are unlikely to meet our standards and tests in regard to human rights. Nevertheless, we believe that it is important to preserve the ability to deal with ad hoc requests because they may arrive from countries with which we feel it is possible to agree extradition.

We also believe that it is useful to have such a provision in our legislation because it may help us in a reciprocal situation where we make a request to another country. There have been occasions when ad hoc requests from us to other countries with which we do not have extradition agreements have been acceded to. Therefore this provision may slightly bear on and assist such a situation. It is for those reasons that we feel it wise to include this provision in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and for the comments that he has made by letter. He commented that he originally thought he would deal with this issue by order, but we entirely support the view that it is better to make explicit provision for it on the face of the Bill. We also support the provision that any ad hoc requests must be accompanied by prima facie evidence.

10 Sept 2003 : Column GC23

As the Minister said both in his letter and this afternoon, such requests are very rare. It would be helpful to know whether the similar provisions in Section 15 of the Extradition Act 1989, to which he referred in his letter, have ever been used. We would be reluctant to support the inclusion of these provisions in the Bill if there is no evidence that they have ever been used. Why accept something merely because it has precedent in legislation?

The colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, recently managed to remove three clauses from the Bill by replacing five clauses with two. During the Second Reading debate and in Committee, many noble Lords have spoken graphically about the fact that this legislation is far longer than the legislation it seeks to replace. There is a view that we need to be diligent in cleaning off the barnacles of outdated, unused and irrelevant clauses.

No doubt officials have said to the Minister, "Come on, Minister, put it in. Belt and braces. It is a jolly good idea to have it there. We may need it. You never know", but that is not good enough. We should like to be convinced that the new clause is necessary. For us, good evidence of that would be the fact that the provision has been used to good effect in the past under the existing Section 15 of the Extradition Act.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page