No Deal Brexit risks reversing human rights progress in extradition law

28 August 2019 by

The UK Government’s vow to leave the European Union “whatever the circumstances” on the 31st October has left the UK hurtling towards a no-deal Brexit this Halloween, but what does this mean for the rights of people subject to future extradition between the UK and the EU?

For the last 15 years, extradition between EU states has functioned under the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). The EAW is a fast track extradition measure that works on the basis of mutual recognition — the principle that the decision of a court in one Member State is carried out by the courts in another Member State.

Despite appearances in the negotiations, this is one area where the UK and the EU seem to agree on the need for continued close cooperation that largely mirrors current arrangements — the Political Declaration agreed by the UK and the EU envisaged ‘efficient and expeditious’ extradition arrangements.

However, if the UK leaves at the end of October without a deal, the UK will instead have to fall back on the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, which it has already legislated for in its ‘no deal’ preparations.

But that’s not the end of the story.

Once the UK does leave and becomes a third party state, it will be free to negotiate a new extradition arrangement with the EU. But instead of the transition period until December 2020 which would exist if the UK left with a deal (during which extradition would continue under the European Arrest Warrant), a No Deal exit may drastically change the UK’s negotiating timelines.  

The European Convention on Extradition has been described as three times slower and four times more expensive than the EAW, and the UK Government may well feel considerable pressure from crime fighting agencies to put new measures in place that rectify the loss of capabilities from losing the EAW. This could have serious implications for human rights.

It must be noted that the introduction of fast track extradition under the EAW was accompanied by a host of human rights abuses, including the disproportionate use of extradition for minor crimes, and delays to prosecution which left defendants languishing in poor prison conditions abroad. Whilst the introduction of binding procedural rights laws in criminal cases across EU countries has greatly improved access to justice across the bloc, the fact remains that the prison conditions and standards of law faced by those accused of a crime in one EU country may be significantly different to those an accused person would face in another EU country.

In light of several cases of injustice and widespread criticism from civil society, including Fair Trials, the UK introduced safeguards into its domestic law in 2014 to protect those facing extradition under the EAW. These included a proportionality test and a ‘trial readiness’ requirement, which are currently included in Part 1 of the Extradition Act, which governs extradition with EU countries under the EAW.

However, if the UK leaves with no deal EU countries will instead be included in Part 2 of the Extradition Act, which currently governs extradition with non-EU countries. Part 2 does not have these safeguards, because extradition with Part 2 countries is not based on mutual recognition and therefore is subject to different processes and requirements.

If the UK negotiates a new extradition agreement with the EU, the question for human rights will be how this new agreement is enacted into legislation, and whether the crucial safeguards currently contained in Part 1 of the Extradition Act, will be lost in the various cycles of designating and re-designating EU countries under Part 1 or Part 2. The UK’s determination to leave the jurisdiction of the CJEU, meaning that British courts will not have recourse to the European Courts over human rights issues raised by extradition in Europe (of which there have been several landmark rulings in recent years), only serves to make domestic protections more vital.  

In its haste to negotiate a new ‘expeditious’ extradition arrangement with the EU, the UK must not sacrifice crucial human rights safeguards in the name of efficiency. If these safeguards were to be lost, the new extradition agreement may find itself entangled in human rights challenges before the courts, making it not so expeditious after all.

Rose Burke is Legal and Policy Officer at Fair Trials. You can read more about Fair Trials’ work on human rights in the future EU-UK security agreement.

1 comment;


  1. The withdrawal agreement bundles together what is necessary in this and many another “area where the UK and the EU seem to agree on the need for continued close cooperation that largely mirrors current arrangements”, and content that Parliament will never accept. The EU’s stance appears to be that having persuaded the previous Prime Minister to accept the unacceptable, it is entitled to refuse to negotiate with a new Prime Minister.

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 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 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: