Extradition Bill

Present System

Present System | Flowchart | Case Studies | FAQs 1

The Present System: 19th Century Justice Fighting 21st Century Crime

Since the passing of the Extradition Act 1989 (the '1989 Act'), which includes provisions from the Extradition Act 1870, crime has proliferated transnationally, using the tools of instant global communication and international travel. In 2002, the populations of Europe, and indeed the world, are able to travel at a speed and at an ease unthinkable to our Victorian ancestors.

Under the present system, the Secretary of State issues an authority (or order) to proceed (ATP/OTP). Then the courts consider the case and if they give the go ahead it passes back to the Secretary of State to take a final decision on whether to order the fugitive's surrender. However, because the present system allows for multiple and sometimes overlapping avenues of appeal, the system is considerably more complicated than that.

The figures below show an increase in extradition traffic by over 50% in 10 years further increasing delays and costs. Some of the 1989 Act's provisions were drafted with the problems of 19th century crime in mind. In the interests of justice, extradition needs to move into the 21st century.

• In 1999, we surrendered 38 people at a cost of over £3million. 
  That equates to around £125,000 per contested person.
• In 2001, contested surrenders from the UK took on 
  average 18 months.
• In 2001, surrenders to the UK took on average 8 months.

Back to top

Flowchart

Back to top

Case Studies

MR A

Mr A was provisionally arrested in November 1995 by the request of the French authorities and the authority to proceed (ATP) was issued forthwith. There was a pre-committal delay of a year as the defence challenged the warrant in France. As soon as Mr A was committed in February 1997 he appealed lodging an application for a writ of habeas corpus. This was dismissed after much delay in December 1998.

After the order for return was signed by the Secretary of State in June 1999, an application for judicial review was lodged against the decision. Further representations were received in February of 2001, with the Secretary of State confirming his decision to order return in March.

Application for judicial review was lodged against the decision to sign an order for return. This was then withdrawn in July.

Mr A finally tried to argue he was unfit to travel, an objection he withdrew in September when he was finally returned.

MR B

The UK requested the extradition of Mr B in August 2000 for the sexual assault of two children. The children had been abused in the 1970's and only went to the police in 1997.

Mr B was arrested in Denmark in 2000. He admitted guilt to one charge of indecent behaviour. The Danes refused the UK's request because their statute of limitations rules out criminal liability after ten years. Under the EAW, EU states can only apply time limitations on conduct within their own jurisdiction and therefore Mr B would have been returned to the UK.

MR C

Mr C fatally stabbed a man in a pub fight in Newcastle. He disappeared shortly afterwards. Mr C was tracked down and found to be living in Spain.

The fugitive was arrested in October 2000. In December of that year, the Spanish Ministers gave permission for the case to proceed. Mr C contested his extradition and appealed against the order to extradite in May 2001. He lost the appeal in July 2001 and was returned to the UK that November. He then pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to 6 years.

This case highlights the fact that on many occasions extradition is contested and then, on return, the fugitive pleads guilty to the charges brought against him.

Mr D

Mr D absconded from prison in the UK after serving ten years of a sentence for murder. He was found to be hiding in France in 1995, whereupon the UK submitted a request for extradition.

The French authorities initially could not find Mr D and returned the request in 1998. In July 2000, the UK resubmitted a request, following information in the press that he was living in southern France. Mr D contested extradition in October 2000. The proceedings took over a year and Mr D was returned in November 2001.

That Mr D was already a convicted criminal demonstrates that even for individuals deemed to be guilty in a court of law, extradition proceedings can still be lengthy.

Mr E

Mr E was arrested and charged with evasion of duty on excise goods, mainly duties on table wine imported from Italy. The total cost in unpaid duties to the Exchequer was approximately £750,000. The accused was put on bail and promptly absconded to Italy.

The UK submitted a request for Mr E which was refused on the grounds that there was no directly corresponding offence in Italy.

This illustrates the advantage of the use of the list system in the EAW and recognises the advantage the EAW will bring when extraditing for fiscal offences. Tax evasion not only defrauds the Exchequer but every citizen in the UK.

The Inland Revenue says of the EAW proposals:

"The Inland Revenue very much welcomes this legislation and the ability to use European Arrest Warrants. There have been difficulties with the extradition processes for tax evaders until now, which has made it difficult for the U.K. to gain the return of those who commit tax fraud and then flee to European destinations. Often these individuals have been guilty of defrauding the U.K. Exchequer of significant sums of revenue. These proposals will go a very long way towards helping the U.K. address these problems."

Back to top