A breakdown of the offences is set out in the table below. These only relate to the principal offences listed on the warrants, as other offences may be listed:

In the 2014/15 business year the National Crime Agency (NCA) received 127 European Arrest Warrants for British citizens. During the same period 40 British citizens were extradited under an EAW.

The number of EAWs for British citizens which resulted in a discharge by the courts during this same period is not held centrally.

Since the start of 2010 the UK has extradited 35 British citizens (including dual nationals) from the UK to the USA, over the same time period the US has extradited 8 US nationals (including dual nationals) to the UK.

Of those arrested for the purposes of extradition to the US since 1 January 2010, 50 individuals (of all nationalities) have been extradited (up to and including 3 November 2015).

All figures are from local management information, and have not been quality assured to the level of published National Statistics. As such they should be treated as provisional and therefore subject to change.

Since the start of 2010 the UK has extradited 35 British citizens (including dual nationals) from the UK to the USA, over the same time period the US has extradited 8 US nationals (including dual nationals) to the UK.

Of those arrested for the purposes of extradition to the US since 1 January 2010, 50 individuals (of all nationalities) have been extradited (up to and including 3 November 2015).

All figures are from local management information, and have not been quality assured to the level of published National Statistics. As such they should be treated as provisional and therefore subject to change.

A Government response to the House of Lords Select Committee on Extradition Law was published as Command Paper (9106) on 20 July 2015. The Government agreed with a number of the Select Committee’s recommendations, but in regard to a memorandum of understanding with the US found that:

“Experience has shown that the courts tend to consider issues on a case-by-case basis, and as such we do not consider that agreeing a ‘one size fits all’ Memorandum of Understanding with any country would be helpful as concerns assurances. It would not bind the courts and, in all likelihood, would only make it more difficult to obtain the individual assurances that would still be required for certain cases. As such, whilst the Government understands and sympathises with the intention behind this recommendation, it does not support it.”

It is a matter of long-standing policy and practice that the Government will neither confirm nor deny whether an extradition request has been made or received prior to the arrest of the person concerned pursuant to that request.

Under the UK-US Treaty there is no practical difference in the treatment of UK and US nationals, or indeed the nationals of any other country. This was also the conclusion of the independent Review of the UK’s Extradition Arrangements which the Home Secretary asked Sir Scott Baker to conduct, which stated “We have concluded that the United States/United Kingdom Treaty does not operate in an unbalanced manner” and that “there is no practical difference between the information submitted to and from the United States”. Changes were made to the operation of the Treaty in the last Parliament, such as the introduction of the 'forum bar' under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The Government believes that the Treaty is operating fairly.

The Government will neither confirm nor deny whether it is considering or is involved in negotiations with a particular country over an extradition treaty.

The absence of a formal extradition treaty does not prevent the UK from requesting the extradition of an individual from another country. It is a matter for the law of that country whether it is able to respond to such a request.

The Government will neither confirm nor deny whether it is considering or is involved in negotiations with a particular country over an extradition treaty.

The absence of a formal extradition treaty does not prevent the UK from requesting the extradition of an individual from another country. It is a matter for the law of that country whether it is able to respond to such a request.

The Government will neither confirm nor deny whether it is considering or is involved in negotiations with a particular country over an extradition treaty.

The absence of a formal extradition treaty does not prevent the UK from requesting the extradition of an individual from another country. It is a matter for the law of that country whether it is able to respond to such a request.

As a matter of long-standing policy and practice, the Government will neither confirm nor deny the existence of an extradition request made or received by this country before an arrest is made pursuant to such a request.

This is in order to prevent the subject of a request learning about it in advance, and giving them the opportunity to evade justice by leaving the jurisdiction or otherwise seeking to avoid arrest.

The Home Office does not initiate extradition requests. Extradition requests to countries outside the European Union are prepared by the relevant prosecuting authority and the police. They are then sent to the Home Office to seal and certify, and for transmission to the relevant State. Extradition may only be requested where a person is accused or convicted of an offence.

The United Kingdom’s extradition legislation has a number of safeguards in place to ensure that extradition would not result in a person suffering treatment which would be in breach of their human rights.

In determining whether to order extradition the District Judge must be satisfied that the person’s extradition is compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 as set out in section 21 (Part 1) and section 87 (Part 2) of the Extradition Act 2003 (the 2003 Act).

In Part 2 of the 2003 Act, particular safeguards ensure that people are not extradited and suffer a breach of their human rights. The District Judge must decide whether any of the statutory bars to extradition apply. These bars include whether an extradition request was made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing the person on account of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinion. Furthermore, the forum bar, introduced in the Crime and Courts Act 2013, sets out that if a substantial measure of the offence in question was performed in the UK, extradition must be barred.

In addition, in ordering extradition, the Secretary of State must consider whether extradition is prohibited because he or she could face the death penalty. This is an absolute prohibition and may require a written assurance from the requesting state that the death penalty will not be imposed, or will not be carried out, if imposed.

Finally, a person may raise human rights on appeal, with at present, a right to appeal to the High Court and on to the Supreme Court. There is also the possibility of human rights appeals being brought late under section 108 of the 2003 Act.

The information is set out in the tables attached. Extradition to and from EU Member States is governed by the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). This is operated by the National Crime Agency, who have provided the separate figures for EAWs. Extradition to and from other territories is dealt with by the Home Office.

The figures apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland only. Scotland deals with its own extradition cases.

The information is set out in the tables attached. Extradition to and from EU Member States is governed by the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). This is operated by the National Crime Agency, who have provided the separate figures for EAWs. Extradition to and from other territories is dealt with by the Home Office.

The figures apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland only. Scotland deals with its own extradition cases.