Extradition review backs status quo, leaves some completely baffled

19 October 2011 by

A review of the UK’s extradition laws by a former Court of Appeal judge has found that existing arrangements between the UK and USA are balanced but the Home Secretary’s discretion to intervene in human rights cases should be removed.

The review by Sir Scott Baker was commissioned shortly after the Coalition Government came to power, fulfilling the pledge in its programme for government to ”review the operation of the Extradition Act – and the US/UK extradition treaty – to make sure it is even-handed”. In my September 2010 post I said that the review marked a victory for campaigners against certain extradition agreements, most notably the supporters of alleged Pentagon hacker Gary McKinnon (pictured).

Extradition is the name given to the formal legal process by which persons accused or convicted of crime are surrendered from one State to another for trial or punishment. Extradition law constitutes a system of agreements between states which make it easier to extradite, for example, criminal suspects if a certain level of evidence is provided and procedures complied with.

The campaigners who prompted the review have been less than enthused by its result, which mostly backed the status quo. In summary, Sir Scott found:

  • The European Arrest Warrant (in the news most recently in relation to the attempted extradition of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to Sweden) “has improved the scheme of surrender between Member States of the European Union and that broadly speaking it operates satisfactorily“. However, some member states are issuing too many warrants, a problem which is being addressed by the European Union and Commission.
  • A “forum barrule, whereby suspects would be tried in the country where the bulk of their offences had been committed, should not be implemented as it would “create delay and has the potential to generate satellite litigation”
  • The United States/United Kingdom Treaty, which campaigners for Gary McKinnon amongst others have argued is unbalanced against the UK, “does not operate in an unbalanced manner” and there is “no significant difference between the probable cause [US] test and the reasonable suspicion [UK] test“.
  • The prima facie case requiring the requesting State should be required to provide evidence establishing a prima facie (at first sight) case against the accused person should not be re-introduced (it was first recommended in 1868) .
  • The Secretary of State’s discretions relating to competing extradition requests and national security should “remain as they are” and should not be increased. However, her discretion in human rights matters should be removed as “they are more appropriately the concern of the judiciary.”
  • As to extradition claims in cases where asylum claims have been made before they have begun, the Extradition Act 2003 should be amended so that extradition cannot take place until an asylum claim has been finally determined. This is in order for the UK to comply with the Refugee Convention.
  • Means testing for legal aid is too slow for those facing extradition. The Government should look into removing the means testing requirement or giving the courts discretion to grant legal aid in some cases.
  • There are a number of extradition cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights (such as this one by cleric and terrorist suspect Abu Hamza). Some have been before the court for over three years, and this delay should be taken up by the government.
Sir Scott’s 486-page review is certainly thorough, but those who were hoping for radical recommendations will be disappointed. The human rights organisation Liberty have said they are “completely baffled” by it and campaigners for Gary McKinnon have called the recommendations “pathetic”. The Home Secretary, however, has said that she is “very grateful“; it may be that the Home Office is relieved that significant and complicated extradition agreements with other states will not have to be renegotiated.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: