1-16 of 16 results for subject:Extradition
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.236 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.004 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Extradition
- We searched for
- subject_t:Extradition OR subject_ses:91213
Primary member
X
Campbell of Pittenweem, Lord
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
More
Campbell of Pittenweem, Lord (16)
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
Publisher
My Lords, what are we to rely on in these matters, the Panglossian statements of the Home Secretary or the experience of a former National Security Adviser, the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, who has said publicly that our position now in these matters is one of damage limitation?
My Lords, what are we to rely on in these matters, the Panglossian statements of the Home Secretary or the experience of a former National Security Adviser, the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, who has said publicly that our position now in these matters is one of damage limitation?
Asked by
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
(Liberal Democrat)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Procedure
Remote contributions
Answered on
13 January 2021
By chance, I heard the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, outlining some of his concerns on the radio. I bow to his expertise but there is probably some difference in our interpretation of what he outlined, particularly on access to databases and the sharing of information.
Subjects
EU countries; Extradition; Reciprocal arrangements
Date
13 January 2021
Reference
809 c735
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many people have been extradited (1) to the USA from the UK, and (2) to the UK from the USA, since the Extradition Act 2003 came into force.
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many people have been extradited (1) to the USA from the UK, and (2) to the UK from the USA, since the Extradition Act 2003 came into force.
Asked by
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Baroness Williams of Trafford
(Conservative)
Answering body
Home Office
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
18 May 2020
For answer on
2 June 2020
Answered on
2 June 2020
The Extradition Act 2003 entered into force on 1 January 2004. To date, since entry into force, there have been 177 extraditions from the UK to the US, and 67 from the US to the UK.
Subjects
Extradition; USA
Date
2 June 2020
Reference
HL4590
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they intend to renegotiate current extradition arrangements between the UK and the USA.
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they intend to renegotiate current extradition arrangements between the UK and the USA.
Asked by
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Baroness Williams of Trafford
(Conservative)
Answering body
Home Office
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
18 May 2020
For answer on
2 June 2020
Answered on
2 June 2020
There is no current intention to renegotiate the UK-US Extradition Treaty.
Subjects
Extradition; Treaties; USA
Date
2 June 2020
Reference
HL4588
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty's Government with which EU member states they have concluded extradition agreements to come into force after the end of the transition period.
To ask Her Majesty's Government with which EU member states they have concluded extradition agreements to come into force after the end of the transition period.
Asked by
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Baroness Williams of Trafford
(Conservative)
Answering body
Home Office
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
18 May 2020
For answer on
2 June 2020
Answered on
2 June 2020
The safety and security of our citizens is the government’s top priority, which is why we have said the agreement with the EU on law enforcement and judicial cooperation on criminal matters should provide for fast-track extradition arrangements based on the EU’s arrangements with Norway and Iceland, but with appropriate further safeguards for individuals beyond those in the European Arrest Warrant.
Both the UK and the EU are committed in the Political Declaration to reaching agreement by the end of 2020.
Subjects
EU countries; Extradition; Treaties
Date
2 June 2020
Reference
HL4589
House
House of Lords
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies her Department has undertaken of the differing legal systems of states to which the UK can extradite people through the European Arrest Warrant since 2003.
[112125]
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies her Department has undertaken of the differing legal systems of states to which the UK can extradite people through the European Arrest Warrant since 2003.
[112125]
Asked by
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Damian Green
(Conservative)
Answering body
Home Department
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
12 June 2012
For answer on
14 June 2012
Answered on
9 July 2012
The UK has not conducted any such studies. It has participated in a peer evaluation of member states' implementation of the European Arrest Warrant, and this Government commissioned a comprehensive, independent review of the operation of the UK's extradition arrangements, including the European Arrest Warrant, which included consideration of the standards applicable across member states' criminal justice systems. The Government will respond to the review shortly.
Subjects
Extradition; European arrest warrants
Date
9 July 2012
Reference
112125; 548 cc80-1W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Attorney-General what proportion of its total budget the Crown Prosecution Service spent on extradition cases in each year since 2003.
[111910]
To ask the Attorney-General what proportion of its total budget the Crown Prosecution Service spent on extradition cases in each year since 2003.
[111910]
Asked by
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Lord Garnier
(Conservative)
Answering body
Attorney-General
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
12 June 2012
For answer on
14 June 2012
Answered on
18 June 2012
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) did not maintain separate financial data for the Extradition Unit prior to 2007-08. The following table details the percentage budget spend for the Extradition Unit and does not include import cases dealt with by the CPS areas.
| Financial
year | Total
CPS budget
(£) | Total
Extradition Unit spend
(£) | Percentage
spend |
| 2007-08 | 648,432,000 | 1,489,677 | 0.23 |
| 2008-09 | 648,032,000 | 2,121,732 | 0.33 |
| 2009-10 | 689,156,000 | 1,750,115 | 0.25 |
| 2010-11 | 642,888,000 | 1,724,557 | 0.27 |
| 2011-12 | 621,853,000 | 2,714,827 | 0.44 |
Subjects
Extradition; Expenditure
Date
18 June 2012
Reference
111910; 546 cc625-6W
House
House of Commons
But is it not important to recognise why there are serious anxieties among the public about the nature of the system for extradition, and does not the question of the different standard of proof on each side of the Atlantic lie right at the very heart of that anxiety? The Attorney-General will be obliged to give legal advice to the Home Secretary. Will he give her advice that points to the fact that the two standards are different, and therefore that the political conclusion that the system is failing is a legitimate one?
But is it not important to recognise why there are serious anxieties among the public about the nature of the system for extradition, and does not the question of the different standard of proof on each side of the Atlantic lie right at the very heart of that anxiety? The Attorney-General will be obliged to give legal advice to the Home Secretary. Will he give her advice that points to the fact that the two standards are different, and therefore that the political conclusion that the system is failing is a legitimate one?
Asked by
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
(Liberal Democrat)
Answering body
Attorney General
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
20 March 2012
I have to say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I do not think that, in practice, the difference between a test of ““probable cause””, which we have to show in the United States, and a test of ““reasonable suspicion””, which the United States has to show here, amounts to a very significant difference at all. As I mentioned to the Home Affairs Committee, in any event, the United States usually provides material to its own ““probable cause”” standard, so I have to say that I may disagree with him on this. Although I accept that there is an argument that this country could seek to move to a ““probable cause”” basis, to mirror that of the United States, in practice I do not think that that would make a very substantial difference to the way in which the extradition agreement with the US worked.
Subjects
Extradition; Reform
Date
20 March 2012
Reference
542 c644
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
In the light of the discussions last week—[Interruption.] ... In the light of the discussions last week between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States about extradition, is the Home Secretary now in a position to tell the House when she expects to respond to the Baker report?
In the light of the discussions last week—[Interruption.] ... In the light of the discussions last week between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States about extradition, is the Home Secretary now in a position to tell the House when she expects to respond to the Baker report?
Asked by
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
(Liberal Democrat)
Answering body
Home Office
Topical questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
19 March 2012
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his question. As he will have seen from the Prime Minister's comments following his discussions with the President, discussions are taking place between this Government and the American Government about the extradition treaty, and I will report shortly.
Subjects
Extradition; Police
Date
19 March 2012
Reference
542 c511
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
I have the misfortune to disagree with Lord Justice Scott Baker's conclusion in relation to the standard of proof. May we have an assurance from the Attorney-General that in determining these matters proper account will be taken of the principle of reciprocity, and that it will be ensured that British citizens are not at a constitutional disadvantage in comparison with their American counterparts?
I have the misfortune to disagree with Lord Justice Scott Baker's conclusion in relation to the standard of proof. May we have an assurance from the Attorney-General that in determining these matters proper account will be taken of the principle of reciprocity, and that it will be ensured that British citizens are not at a constitutional disadvantage in comparison with their American counterparts?
Asked by
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
(Liberal Democrat)
Answering body
Attorney General
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
15 November 2011
Mr right hon. and learned Friend makes another important point. Again, that is one reason why we asked for that matter to be looked into by Lord Justice Scott Baker and those who served with him. We are going to have to take account of his proposals, and I hope very much that my right hon. and learned Friend will make a contribution to that discussion.
Subjects
Extradition
Date
15 November 2011
Reference
535 c692
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Does the Home Secretary understand that, in addition to the lop-sided nature of the legislation, there is a further issue that prejudices British citizens, namely the willingness of American courts to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction and entertain prosecutions in circumstances where doing so would simply not be permitted in this country? Will that second issue also form part of her review?
Does the Home Secretary understand that, in addition to the lop-sided nature of the legislation, there is a further issue that prejudices British citizens, namely the willingness of American courts to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction and entertain prosecutions in circumstances where doing so would simply not be permitted in this country? Will that second issue also form part of her review?
Asked by
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
(Liberal Democrat)
Answering body
Home Office
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
6 September 2010
Let me say to my right hon. and learned Friend that, as I have indicated, I am well aware of the range of concerns that exist in relation to the extradition treaty between the UK and the USA. That is why the coalition Government have agreed that we should have this review of the extradition treaty and take it more widely, looking at all our extradition arrangements to ensure that they operate effectively and in the interests of justice.
Subjects
Extradition; USA
Date
6 September 2010
Reference
515 c12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
But there is an area where the Secretary of State has discretion, and that is in relation to the Government's policy towards extradition. Why are we still sending people to the United States under a one-sided extradition treaty? Is it not now time to renegotiate that treaty so as to provide for extradition between our two countries that is firmly based on the principle of reciprocity?
But there is an area where the Secretary of State has discretion, and that is in relation to the Government's policy towards extradition. Why are we still sending people to the United States under a one-sided extradition treaty? Is it not now time to renegotiate that treaty so as to provide for extradition between our two countries that is firmly based on the principle of reciprocity?
Asked by
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
(Liberal Democrat)
Answering body
Home Office
Topical questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
6 July 2009
I disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we have a one-sided extradition treaty. I have looked at it carefully over the past few weeks. An awful lot of hyperbole is spoken about this issue—it is almost as if the US were an enemy of this country. The current extradition treaty with the US ensures equal co-operation between the UK and the US. This issue comes up periodically; I remember that it came up in relation to the Natwest three when I was at the DTI. Perhaps hon. Members will remember the marching through the streets in relation to that case, but it all went very quiet—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) says from beyond the Bar that he was one of the people marching, but we did not hear much after the Natwest three pleaded guilty and were prosecuted. I do not believe that we have an unbalanced treaty; I think that it is a fair treaty between the US and the UK, and one that serves both countries well.
Subjects
Extradition; USA; Forensic Science Service
Date
6 July 2009
Reference
495 c692
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Not much comfort there, I think. As recently as last night, the Government assured us that the extradition treaty with the United States would facilitate justice. Is not what we have a fast-track process, but a fast-track process that goes only one way?
Not much comfort there, I think. As recently as last night, the Government assured us that the extradition treaty with the United States would facilitate justice. Is not what we have a fast-track process, but a fast-track process that goes only one way?
Asked by
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
(Liberal Democrat)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
25 October 2006
I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is stretching reality a bit there, because the fact of the matter is that we were asked to make sure that the US Senate and Congress ratified the treaty and we have done our best to ensure that that happens. I have repeated again my sympathy to Mr. Lloyd’s family, but let me just point out to him that I think that it is important when we talk about American soldiers, or indeed our own soldiers that I make it clear that not just British soldiers, but American soldiers and the soldiers of many other countries who we are fighting alongside, are doing a superb job in very difficult circumstances. None of that will, of course, excuse anything wrong that has happened, but I do not think that it is right to have a debate about the armed forces, particularly when they are losing significant numbers of troops, as the American forces are, without paying tribute to their heroism, courage and bravery in defence of democracy in Iraq.
Subjects
Armed forces; Extradition; USA; Lloyd, Terry
Date
25 October 2006
Reference
450 c1512
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of sympathy and condolence from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition?
Last week, the Prime Minister told me that it was not true that the United States had to meet a different standard of evidence from the United Kingdom in extradition cases. On 16 December 2003, Baroness Scotland told the House of Lords that the United Kingdom had to reach a higher threshold than the United States. Which is true—no difference or a higher threshold?
May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of sympathy and condolence from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition?
Last week, the Prime Minister told me that it was not true that the United States had to meet a different standard of evidence from the United Kingdom in extradition cases. On 16 December 2003, Baroness Scotland told the House of Lords that the United Kingdom had to reach a higher threshold than the United States. Which is true—no difference or a higher threshold?
Asked by
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
(Liberal Democrat)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
12 July 2006
The evidence I have from the Attorney-General’s consultations with the senior Treasury counsel is twofold. It may help the House if I set it out. First, in the Attorney-General’s view, the test that the United States applies—probable cause—is roughly analogous to the test that we apply in this country. [Interruption.] But secondly—if the House will listen—and perhaps more important, according to the senior Treasury counsel, even under the old test of having to provide prima facie evidence, those people would still be extradited. Indeed, the case for extradition was originally mounted under the old law,
not the new one. However, I totally understand the concerns of the particular individuals and their families. The Attorney-General has spoken to the US Department of Justice and has been informed that the American prosecutors will not oppose bail as long as the appropriate conditions are put in place by the court or agreed by the defendants. It would not be right if we ended up applying a higher standard and burden of proof to America than to many other countries, including European countries, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and even countries such as Azerbaijan and Albania.
Subjects
Admissibility of evidence; Bail; Evidence; Extradition; Treaties; USA; NatWest Three
Date
12 July 2006
Reference
448 c1385-6
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
That does not appear to deal with the contradiction between what the Prime Minister said last week and what Baroness Scotland said to the House of Lords. Will not the Prime Minister accept that the Government have negotiated an unfair treaty, against the interests of the British people, which was needlessly rushed through the House of Commons in Committee proceedings that lasted only 90 minutes, and that it is absurd to continue to act under it when the United States declines to ratify it? In view of the anxiety in the business community and both Houses of Parliament, will the Prime Minister now renegotiate the treaty?
That does not appear to deal with the contradiction between what the Prime Minister said last week and what Baroness Scotland said to the House of Lords. Will not the Prime Minister accept that the Government have negotiated an unfair treaty, against the interests of the British people, which was needlessly rushed through the House of Commons in Committee proceedings that lasted only 90 minutes, and that it is absurd to continue to act under it when the United States declines to ratify it? In view of the anxiety in the business community and both Houses of Parliament, will the Prime Minister now renegotiate the treaty?
Asked by
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
(Liberal Democrat)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
12 July 2006
Again, let me explain to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the basis of the matter—that the United States is extraditing people from the United Kingdom in circumstances in which we could not extradite from the United States—is wrong according to the information that I have. Those people would have been extradited even under the old treaty provisions. ““Probable cause””, which comes under the American constitution and will remain even if the treaty is ratified, is similar to test that we apply. The real issue, which I understand for obvious reasons, is consideration for the men and their families were they to be refused bail in the United States. We are doing everything that we can to avoid that, but if we were to end up reversing the extradition treaty, we would not take away a special privilege that is given to America but impose a special detriment on America. That cannot be right.
Subjects
Admissibility of evidence; Bail; Evidence; Extradition; Treaties; USA; NatWest Three
Date
12 July 2006
Reference
448 c1386
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Once cannot but observe, what about the principle of reciprocity? What could be more unfair than for a British citizen to be extradited to the United States without a prima facie case and under a treaty that the United States declines to ratify? Will the Prime Minister act to bring an end to this practice?
Once cannot but observe, what about the principle of reciprocity? What could be more unfair than for a British citizen to be extradited to the United States without a prima facie case and under a treaty that the United States declines to ratify? Will the Prime Minister act to bring an end to this practice?
Asked by
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
(Liberal Democrat)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
5 July 2006
If I may again deal with the reciprocal arrangements, it is not true that the United States has a different evidential burden from this country. The probable cause, which is the burden that the United States places on countries that want to extradite from the United States, is analogous to what we now provide under the Extradition Act 2003. It is not correct to say that the United States has been given preferential treatment or that the arrangements in respect of evidence are not reciprocal. However, I do understand the real concern that the families will have about what happens when they go to the United States, and I have asked our officials to see whether there is any support or assurances that we can give so that if they are extradited, they are given the opportunity to be bailed.
Subjects
Extradition; USA
Date
5 July 2006
Reference
448 c807
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
May I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of condolence and sympathy from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition?
On 1 March the Prime Minister told me that he did not believe that the arrangements for the extradition of United Kingdom citizens to the United States were unfair. Does he still believe that?
May I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of condolence and sympathy from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition?
On 1 March the Prime Minister told me that he did not believe that the arrangements for the extradition of United Kingdom citizens to the United States were unfair. Does he still believe that?
Asked by
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
(Liberal Democrat)
Answering body
Prime Minister
Prime Minister's questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
5 July 2006
I do believe that the arrangements are not unfair, for the reason that I can give the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although I totally understand the concern of the individuals who are to be extradited and their families as to what may happen, particularly in terms of bail, when they get to the United States. I will say more about that in a moment. What is important to realise is that the changes that we made a few years ago ended a situation where the United States was uniquely, to its detriment, not given the same arrangements as other countries. The purpose of the change— [Interruption.] Listen to the facts. The purpose of the change was to bring the United States into line not merely with European countries, but with countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada. That was the purpose of the change, but I totally understand the concern about bail arrangements and other matters.
Subjects
Extradition; USA
Date
5 July 2006
Reference
448 c806-7
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons