Proceeding contribution from Dominic Raab (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 24 November 2011. It occurred during Adjournment debate, Backbench debate and e-petition debate on Extradition.
Extradition
I am sure that is correct. Going back to the Baker report and the issue of extradition under the European arrest warrant for the purposes of investigation rather than prosecution, the report effectively denies that EAWs are being used in cases where there is ““insufficient evidence””. That is an astonishing conclusion; it is really remarkable. It is just one example of where the Baker review would have been assisted if it had interviewed the victims. It did not do that. However, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis), the Joint Committee on Human Rights did, and we gleaned as a result not just the legal technicalities and the operation but the human toll on those affected, particularly the innocent—but actually everyone. If we stand up for the principles of justice, we stand up for them across the board and the presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of British justice. The Baker review should have heard the personal side of the trauma endured by Michael and his family. Instead, and this is really disappointing, Michael's case merely gets a solitary mention in a footnote at the bottom of page 279. The review's response to the broader issue of whether European arrest warrants are issued for investigations and not prosecutions is really to point out the blindingly obvious. It concludes that it should not happen under the terms of the framework decision, but that will be no comfort to the Turner family, because it does happen and it is happening and it will happen again unless we put a check in place. Either we can and should amend the Extradition Act 2003 to make it explicit that extradition for investigation is barred or we need to pursue amendment of the framework decision itself. Given that we do so on other grounds, that would be a sensible course to take. On other occasions, the EAW system has proved truly Kafkaesque for its victims. The case of Deborah Dark, a grandmother of two, best illustrates that. She gave evidence to our Committee. She was acquitted of drug offences in France more than 20 years ago. Without telling her, the French prosecutors appealed and a two-year jail sentence was imposed in her absence. Seventeen years later, on holiday in Turkey, she was stunned to be arrested at gunpoint. After a three-year legal ordeal, French investigators finally dropped the case. Traumatised, Mrs Dark told the Joint Committee:"““I had been walking around for over 20 years as a wanted person and I did not know.””" That major flaw would be remedied by the specific recommendations put forward by the Joint Committee, which considered all such cases and looked at the impact on the victims as well as taking advice on both law and policy from a range of non-governmental organisations. There are many other victims, such as Edmond Arapi, and many other controversial cases, such as that of Babar Ahmad.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 536 c151-2WH
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- Westminster Hall
- Subjects
- Arrest warrants EU countries Extradition Human rights USA McKinnon, Gary Ahmad, Babar Symeou, Andrew
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 21:57:07 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_788661
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_788661
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_788661