Search Results

1-13 of 13 results for subject:Extradition

Show detailed: On Off

Results: 10 20 50 100

Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the total cost to public funds was of the extradition case of Senator Pinochet. - Includes figures.

Asked by

Linda Perham (Labour)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

3 May 2001

For answer on

8 May 2001

Answered on

8 May 2001

Ms Perham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost to public funds was of the extradition case of Senator Pinochet. [160723] Mr. Straw: Four countries (Spain, France, Belgium and Switzerland) sought Senator Pinochet's extradition under the European Convention on Extradition. The final and total cost to public funds of handling these requests was £3,857,108.58. The breakdown of this is as follows: Costs Incurred by the Home Office: £670,588.82 Treasury Solicitor's fees: £63,150.000{1} Disbursements (mainly Counsel's fees): £292,385.93{1} Costs of the Kingdom of Belgium and Amnesty International: £155,081.68 Costs of Medical Examination on 5 January 2000: £11,751.25 Responding to public correspondence (this covers staff costs where letters were handled in house and Central Office of Information fees where letters were contracted out): £10,941.05 Staff Costs (estimated): £165,778.91 {1} Of these two amounts £28,500.00 was recovered from Senator Pinochet under costs orders made against Senator Pinochet by the High Court. Costs Incurred by the Crown Prosecution Service: £676,691.00 Counsel's fees: £425,077.00 Staff Costs (estimated): £137,055.00 Other Costs (interpreters, travel and subsistence and photocopying): £114,559.00 Costs Incurred by the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers: £60,000.00 Staff Costs (estimated): £60,000.00 Costs Incurred by the Lord Chancellor's Department: £1,209,775.05 The Law Lords ordered that Senator Pincohet's costs should be met from Central Funds for the first two hearings before the House of Lords in the unusual circumstances of the case. The costs paid from Central Funds were as follows: for the first hearing in the House of Lords: £270,935.89; and for the application to set aside the judgment following the first hearing in the House of Lords: £151,361.30 The costs of those Divisional court hearings in which Senator Pinochet was successful or which did not proceed, and the costs of the committal proceedings in Bow Street Magistrates court from 27 September to 1 October 1999, were also order to be paid from Central Funds. The costs of these hearings were £787,477.86. All these costs were ordered to be paid under Section 16 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and they fall to be paid out of the Lord Chancellor's Department's portion of central funds. Senator Pinochet received no legal aid funding in any of the proceedings against him. Treasury Solicitor's Fees: £100,053.76 Amicus Curiae (costs and disbursements including Counsel's fees): £71,029.00 Other costs and disbursements: £29,024.76 Security Costs: £1,200,000.00 Responsibility for Senator Pinochet's protection and detention were the responsibility of the Metropolitan police. For security reasons, it has long been the practice of successive Governments not to provide information about police operations relating to protection. The costs incurred by Surrey police relating to general policing and public order matters in relation to Senator Pinochet's residence in Wentworth were £1,200,000.00. All these figures include Value Added Tax where appropriate.

Date

8 May 2001

Reference

368 c74-5W; 160723

House

House of Commons

International Criminal Court Bill (HL) 2000/01

International Criminal Court Bill (HL). Committee stage sixth sitting (afternoon). Clause 2 to 10 agreed to.

Type

Debates on bills; Public Bill Committee proceedings

Notes

Received 30.04.01

Date

26 April 2001

Reference

SCD

House

House of Commons

European Convention on Extradition (Fiscal Offences) Order 2001

SI 2001/1453 (Negative instrument). Coming into force 16 May 2001

Department

Privy Council

Type

Statutory instruments

Date

25 April 2001

Reference

SI 2001/1453

House

House of Commons; House of Lords

2R, Programme motion and Money res*:International Criminal Court Bill (HL) 2000/01

International Criminal Court Bill (HL). Second reading debate. Agreed to on question. Debate on programme motion for remaining proceedings agreed to on division (310 to 137). Money resolution agreed to on question (formal)

Lead member

Robin Cook

Answering member

Lord Maude of Horsham

Department

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Type

Debates on bills

Date

3 April 2001

Reference

366 c214-94

House

House of Commons

Home Office

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will make a statement on the grounds on which an individual subject to extradition could be transferred to another jurisdiction in his recently published proposals on extradition.

Asked by

Kevin McNamara (Labour)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

26 March 2001

Reference

155079; 365 c496W;365 c498W

House

House of Commons

European Convention on Extradition Order 2001

SI 2001/962 (Negative instrument). Coming into force 17 April 2001

Department

Privy Council

Type

Statutory instruments

Date

26 March 2001

Reference

SI 2001/962

House

House of Commons; House of Lords

Home Office

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many extradition requests were (a) completed and (b) not completed, with non-completed cases, broken down by nature of reason for non-completion, in each of the last five years. - Including figures and fact that information is not available for...

Asked by

Kevin McNamara (Labour)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

15 March 2001

For answer on

23 March 2001

Answered on

23 March 2001

Mr. McNamara: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many extradition requests were (a) completed and (b) not completed, with non-completed cases, broken down by nature of reason for non- completion, in each of the last five years. [154639] Mr. Straw: Information is not available for the full period or in the form requested. The position in relation to completed cases is as follows: Extradition cases completed 1997-2000 _________________________________________________________________________________________________. Year Requests made to United Kingdom Requests made by United Kingdom 1997 70 45 1998 90 59 1999 75 57 2000 77 40 _________________________________________________________________________________________________. As at 31 December 2000, 205 requests to the United Kingdom were outstanding. They fell into the following categories: _________________________________________________________________________________________________. Number Awaiting a decision on the issue of an Authority to Proceed 8 Before the courts 69 Awaiting a decision as to surrender 29 Others 99 _________________________________________________________________________________________________. Notes: 1. In the last of these categories were cases in which a fugitive has yet to be traced and arrested; and/or where we were in touch with the requesting jurisdiction. It also included cases where the fugitive was unable to be surrendered because he was serving a domestic sentence. 2. A reliable statistical breakdown in this form for earlier years is not available. A further 99 extradition requests made by the United Kingdom to other countries were outstanding on 31 December 2000. Exact information is not available as to what stage each case had reached in the various jurisdictions to which those requests were made. The figures provided do not include cases governed by the provisions of the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965. Those are not collected centrally.

Date

23 March 2001

Reference

154639; 365 c401-2W

House

House of Commons

Bassam of Brighton, Lord

When they intend to publish the review of extradition they announced on 2 March 2000. - Inc fact that published today copies in Library.

Asked by

Lord Dubs (Labour)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

12 March 2001

Reference

623 c70-1WA

House

House of Lords

Home Office

Statement on when he will publish the review of extradition he announced on 2nd March 2000. - Including fact that have today published a consultation document entitled The Law on Extradition: A Review, in Library and ref to 2 March 2000, 345 c357-71W and www.homeoffice.gov.uk/oicd/jcu/jcu.htm.

Asked by

Barry Gardiner (Labour)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

8 March 2001

For answer on

12 March 2001

Answered on

12 March 2001

Mr. Gardiner: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the review of extradition he announced on 2 March 2000. [153494] Mr. Straw: I have today published a consultation document entitled "The Law on Extradition: A Review" and copies have been placed in the Library. I announced the review to Parliament in the course of my statement on Senator Pinochet on 2 March 2001, Official Report, column 571W. It is the outcome of an exercise started in 1997 to consider the legislative requirements of two European Union conventions on extradition. However, it developed into a much more extensive inquiry, following the adoption at Tampere in October 1999 of the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions by the member states of the European Union. The consultation document makes far-reaching proposals in relation to all aspects of current extradition law and practice. The greatest changes are proposed in respect of the United Kingdom's procedures for dealing with extradition requests received from member states of the European Union and Schengen states. Our present procedures for dealing with extradition requests from these states contain cumbersome controls and outdated requirements, some of them derived from 19{th} century extradition legislation. Such procedures are no longer necessary, nor do they provide an efficient means to deal with the growing difficulties caused by organised and international crime. For these extradition partners a simple backing of warrants procedure is proposed. This would replace the current multi-staged system in which all extradition requests are examined by both the Secretary of State and the courts, with a single, streamlined hearing before a district judge (Sheriff in Scotland). The documentation required to support an extradition request would also be significantly simplified, to reduce the current burdens placed on our European partners in their efforts to bring fugitives to justice. The proposals retain a statutory right of appeal in order to ensure that fugitives' rights are protected, but also propose that the grounds for appeal be tightened to eliminate time-consuming delays where fugitives appeal on grounds which are not relevant, or are more properly for consideration by the court of trial. The simplified requirements of a backing of warrants scheme would put the mutual recognition principle into practice in the field of extradition. Mutual recognition may be defined as the judicial decisions of one jurisdiction being recognised as valid in another, with the minimum of formality. The review recognises that while major reforms are required to our extradition procedures in respect of our closest neighbours, there is also a clear operational need to reform the procedures for dealing with requests from our extradition partners outside the European Union. Here a final decision in the case by the Secretary of State would be retained, but there would be a significant reduction in the present duplication of my role and that of the courts in deciding cases, with the aim of making extradition quicker and simpler, while protecting fugitives' fundamental human rights. The consultation period for the review proposals is three months. Copies are being made widely available to people and organisations with a professional interest in the subject. Members of the public will be able to apply for a copy from the Home Office, or obtain one from the Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/oicd/ jcu/jcu.htm. Many of the proposals in the document will require primary legislation to implement, which would take place when the legislative timetable allows. I welcome comments on the proposals.

Date

12 March 2001

Reference

153494; 364 c498-500W

House

House of Commons

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, What representations have been made to the Syrian regime about the sheltering of Alo s Brunner. (Failed OPQ).

Asked by

Julian Lewis (Conservative)

Answering body

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

27 February 2001

Reference

363 c584W; 149714

House

House of Commons

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if the honourable Member for Leicester East, has discussed extradition arrangements between the UK and India with (a) Mr G. Hinduja and (b) Mr S. Hinduja whilst serving as a minister in his Department. - No.

Asked by

John Wilkinson (Conservative)

Answering body

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

5 February 2001

Reference

148307; 362 c405W

House

House of Commons

Home Office

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many requests by Her Majesty's Government to the Swiss authorities for the extradition of a Swiss national to the UK have been refused since 1981; and how many UK nationals have been extradited to Switzerland in the same period....

Asked by

Peter Luff (Conservative)

Answering body

Home Office

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

1 February 2001

Reference

147951; 362 c270W

House

House of Commons

Scotland of Asthal, Baroness

Whether they intend to make representations to the Spanish Government about the publication in Chile of the diary of Judge Garzon relating to the extradition of Senator Pinochet. [HL 174].

Asked by

Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Conservative)

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

21 December 2000

Reference

HL 174; 620 c84WA

House

House of Lords

Librarians' tools

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher