Proceeding contribution from Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 30 June 2005. It occurred during Question for short debate on Extradition: UK and USA.
Extradition: UK and USA
My Lords, I do not accept that British citizens are more vulnerable than other citizens. One of the difficulties in affirming the statement just made by the noble Lord is that every single bilateral treaty differs in some regard from every other single bilateral treaty. That is why it is not a multilateral treaty. Therefore it is difficult to accept without qualification the statement the noble Lord makes. The arrangements we have with our American counterparts are fair, proportionate and appropriate because, as I have said, the Government have ensured that real safeguards are in place. Section 71(3) and (4) require the judge to satisfy himself on the information before him that it is sufficient for the issue of a warrant of arrest. The judge may hear argument on that very point. That is a matter of some importance. I also remind noble Lords that the first time the provisions of the Human Rights Act were incorporated into the Extradition Act 2003 was an extremely important act on our part. A district judge cannot order a person’s extradition if he or she believes that that would amount to a serious breach of their human rights. That is a very powerful tool. Even if extradition is ordered, there is a right to appeal to the High Court and I therefore do not accept that the Government have removed important safeguards from British citizens or, indeed, a citizen of any state who may find himself going through the extradition process in this country. It is true that the evidential requirements for extradition requests from the United States have changed. But it is not true that they have been abolished—I say that because it has almost been suggested that US requests can be made without the need to produce any information at all. I want also to emphasise that before the United States prosecutor can make a request for extradition in accordance with US law, he has to satisfy himself that there is probable cause. That does not need to be done in terms of our legislation, our law, but because US law determines that ““probable cause”” is the test which would apply before the request is made.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 673 c408-9
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Conspiracy Fraud Evidence Extradition Parliamentary scrutiny Treaties Reciprocal arrangements Restrictive practices USA Morgan Crucible Price fixing
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-10-30 10:38:41 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_254950
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_254950
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_254950