Extradition review could improve European Arrest Warrants – Rebecca Shaeffer

22 October 2011 by

Adam Wagner’s October 19th post on Sir Scott Baker’s Extradition Review Panel report  noted that the document “mostly backed the status quo,” calling attention to its rejection of proposed reforms to the  “forum bar” rule, the US/UK Treaty, and the lack of a  prima facie case requirement.  

While it’s true that the Report left much to be desired for extradition reform campaigners, especially those focusing on US/UK extradition issues, reformers can take  comfort in the Report’s response to proposed reforms of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), which offered a rather different picture than was reported.

The Scott Baker Review engaged with and reported on each of the key issues raised by Fair Trials International and others in submissions to the Panel.  In contrast to our view, the Report does conclude that the EAW “broadly speaking operates satisfactorily.” Nevertheless, a number of the Report’s recommendations would, if implemented, improve how the EAW is operating.  A roundup of the good, the bad, and the yet to be determined:

Proportionality: The report concludes that the “biggest problem” with the EAW system arises from the sheer number of EAWs issued by some countries without any consideration of whether it is appropriate or whether some less coercive method is available. It proposes that any future amendment to the EAW Framework Decision should include a proportionality test.  However, the test would only apply in the country that issues the warrant, not the one executing it.

Human Rights based refusal grounds: FTI has long noted the apparent reluctance of courts to look behind assurances by requesting states about their ability to safeguard the rights of requested persons.  The report acknowledges that fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights are nevertheless sometimes violated, and that surrender should not take place where this is incompatible with those rights. Despite this acknowledgement, the Panel concludes that courts have become more open to human rights arguments following cases like Targosinski v Poland, which overturned established authority that a district judge cannot refuse to hear evidence at first instance and must conduct a proper enquiry into any Human Rights arguments.

Premature extradition: EAWs are only supposed to be used to extradite people to serve prison sentences or be prosecuted.  In Michael Turner’s case, however, an extradition took place even though no decision had yet been made to prosecute him.  Andrew Symeou’s case also involved premature extradition and imprisonment in horrendous conditions for 11 months.  To avoid extradition where a requesting state is not “trial ready,” the Panel suggests postponing surrender and placing the requested person on bail in the executing State until the presence of the defendant is required.

Insufficient legal representation and legal aid: Accessing legal aid for extradition cases in the UK can be prohibitively complicated, resulting in lack of access to representation in some cases.  Furthermore, legal representation in the issuing state is needed in order to gain sufficient information from the prosecution case file to raise important bars to extradition, such as double jeopardy, and to ensure representation at pre-trial hearings that may occur pre-extradition.  The Panel agreed, concluding that requested persons should be legally represented in both the issuing and executing Member States, and that in the UK, legal aid should no longer be means-tested.

Need to extend time limits in UK for lodging an appeal: Cases like that of Garry Mann  illustrate the problems of rigid and overly short deadlines for appealing against extradition decisions.  It is often impossible for clients to gather the evidence needed to alert the court to serious risks of fundamental rights infringements. The Panel responded positively, suggesting that either the time limit for filing appeals should be extended from 7 to 14 days, or the court given discretion to extend the time limit in the interests of justice.

 

Amendment to allow persons wanted under conviction EAWs to serve sentence in UK: In many cases, British nationals are extradited to begin a sentence only to immediately seek a prisoner transfer back home, wasting resources in both states. The Panel suggests that judges be permitted to refuse to surrender a convicted person if the person is a British resident or national living in the UK, and sentence is 12 months or less, while the person could serve the sentence in the UK.

 

Withdrawal of EAWs when extradition refused (Schengen alerts): In cases like Deborah Dark’s, even though EAWs have been properly refused by executing states, these refusals are not recognised by issuing states, leading to the person risking re-arrest and imprisonment each time they cross an EU border.  Unfortunately, the Panel refused reform on this issue, claiming it was for the EU to reform, not the UK.

This is a guest post by Rebecca Shaeffer, a legal caseworker at Fair Trials International. FTI seeks to protect fair trial rights and defend the rights of people facing criminal charges in a country other than their own. Click here for FTI’s full briefing on Sir Scott Baker’s Extradition Review.

2 comments


  1. Alex Macfie says:

    “does a court from London question an arrest warrant by say a court of Liverpool?” – no it does not, unless a court in Norwich had already refused the warrant, in which case it is null and void. But an EAW is not invalidated if it is refused.

  2. the difference is mainly one of philosophy on the EAW – does a court from London question an arrest warrant by say a court of Liverpool? It may come as a cultural shock, but e.g. Spanish courts are not particularly impressed by english lawyers coming up to say how things should be done and handled.
    I feel – in my experience – a lot comes down to people going/coming/leaving from one country to another and ‘forgetting’ there were matters pending. I am at the moment handling various cases of Britons in spanish jails, and the same problem(s) come up again and again. Likewise, Spanish courts forget – in cases of ‘libertad provisional’ to understand there is something like Europe.
    There should indeed be a system to warn people their presence is required in another court, and whilst e.g. the system exists for Spain (registering at the court your UK address and registering at the consulate) but most people just simply don’ t care. With often tragic consequences.
    The point about executing judgements in the country of origin is a good one – as usual the legislation can be improved.

Comments are closed.

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


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals 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 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

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.

%d bloggers like this: