---

Extradition: UK and USA

My Lords, I am not saying that. The noble Lord is trying to establish whether there is any correlation between probable cause and information. The indication given is that the information would be of such a low standard that it could not be effective in maintaining that there was some cogent evidence on which such an application could vest. I am simply saying that one has to look at the reality of the situation. First, probable cause would have to be obtained by the authorities to satisfy themselves that it would be proper to make that request and, secondly, they would have to comply with our provisions in relation to information. It is on that basis that I say that if we look at the test in relation to information and the test in relation to probable cause—although we can have a wonderful semantic lawyers’ debate about whether there is a difference between one and the other—we can see that a fairly robust test has to be satisfied before one can go further. I have explained that the evidential requirements were not reciprocal under the old 1972 treaty, which, as noble Lords will remember, required the United States to provide prima facie evidence and the UK to show only probable cause. There was an inequality of   process then as we required far more from the Americans than they did from us. So we were slower and we asked for more. We have now largely—but not entirely—levelled the playing field as the new treaty requires the United States to provide information about the offence for which extradition is sought from the United Kingdom. This roughly equates to probable cause. It is a non-negotiable requirement of the US Bill of Rights, which the United States cannot amend even with a lower evidential requirement than prima facie. An extradition request must contain the following: an accurate description of the person sought, including any information that will assist in establishing their location and identity; a statement of the facts of the offences; relevant texts of law describing essential elements of the offence for which extradition is sought and a description of the punishment prescribed for that offence; a copy of the warrant or order of arrest issued by a judge or other competent authority; and a copy of the charging documents. Where the person sought has already been convicted the requesting state is required to provide additional information. This includes copies of any relevant court judgments of conviction, a copy of the sentence imposed and a statement establishing to what extent that sentence has been carried out. In addition, a district judge cannot order a person’s extradition if dual criminality does not apply. I hope your Lordships will agree that it cannot be claimed that we are extraditing persons to the United States based on no evidence of any criminal conduct. I am genuinely disappointed that the United States have not yet found the time to complete the necessary legal processes so that we can exchange instruments of ratification to ensure that the provisions of the new treaty are implemented on both sides of the Atlantic. I have checked to see whether this is the first time that the United States have taken so long and, during my inquiries, I looked at the 1972 treaty. I regret to tell your Lordships that that was not ratified by the United States until 1976. It is therefore wrong to assume that the current situation suggests that the Americans have no intention of completing the ratification process. It is clear that their processes take a long time. We know that in this House the Government cannot always get their business when they wish. We, too, have to await the usual channels. Nevertheless, the Government are not being complacent. As your Lordships are aware, the treaty is with the United States Senate for consideration, but the United States authorities are limited in what they can do to influence its consideration. However, I hope your Lordships will be pleased to learn that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary raised this very   matter with the new US Attorney-General, Alberto Gonzales, in the margins of the G8 meeting in   Sheffield on 16 June. I hope noble Lords will be reassured to know that the Attorney-General had the misfortune to be sitting with me on a bus, from which he could not escape, for some considerable time. So I too had the privilege and pleasure of explaining to him, in quite graphic detail, why this matter was causing your Lordships acute anxiety. Mr Gonzales was sympathetic to our concerns—I shall not say it was because he could not leave the bus—and promised to do what was within his power to do. Separately, he had a very serious conversation with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General. There was real understanding of the position in which we all find ourselves. I can assure your Lordships that the Government will continue to seize every opportunity to urge the United States to complete its ratification process. However, I acknowledge that the United States has not progressed the ratification of this treaty as we would have hoped. I hope I have said enough to assure your Lordships that the process that we have adopted is robust. As it would be highly improper, I shall not comment on any current case. The whole point of having a robust judicial process is that our judges determine whether an individual should be extradited from this country or not, applying our law, the European Convention on Human Rights and the other safeguards that we have put in the Act. In that respect, I maintain that the Government have done absolutely nothing other than to act in the interests of justice by introducing a more efficient and fair extradition process, while preserving important safeguards. It may be foolish to hope that this may be the last occasion on which I shall have the privilege of delighting your Lordships with this particular debate.