UK Extradition Arrangements

John Hemming Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Blunkett]

The forum bar carries forward convention rights and changes the balance, as Scott Baker’s review indicates. Although I do not disagree with a great deal of the report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I note that elements of it would not only prolong the process—it has been mentioned already that some people have been awaiting extradition for a very long time—but alter the balance that we are trying to achieve.

If I were negotiating the 2003 treaty and the accompanying Extradition Act 2003 again, I would want a codicil, detailing alongside the treaty the nature of the process in order to assure people that there was a clear balance between the processes adopted in the United States and here.

In 2009 and 2010, I had the opportunity, which I took up privately, to visit the US Department of Justice. I kept it private for two years, because, in reporting back to the Home and Justice Secretaries under the previous and current Governments, I felt that there was some progress to be made by stating the views of the Department of Justice, as indicated to me, on the possibility of taking decisions about any trial, the nature of any sentence and whether, if applied, it might be served in this country.

Those are difficult issues, because we should not presume that somebody would be found guilty. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) is close to Mr McKinnon’s case, so he will be familiar with Lord Justice Stanley Burnton’s commentary on it, and there is undoubtedly the major issue of medical evidence, which is under examination.

Let me deal briefly with where we should be going. We should return to the issues relating to the European arrest warrant, because, as we have just heard spelt out, extradition arrangements have been distorted in cases from eastern Europe to Greece, partly because there has not been a de minimis rule on sentences and, therefore, whether it applies; because people have been returned to—rather than dealt with originally—years after the case arose; and because EAWs have been presented to people outside the United Kingdom when no attempt has been made to serve a warrant inside. All those matters need reviewing for the sake of the sensible application of justice, because once people feel that justice is not being applied, as we have seen from campaigns and in tonight’s debate, justice is questioned.

On the American issue, however, I shall talk about not just balance, but the rule of law, because we must have sensible arrangements that do not rest on whether we think an individual’s case is a good one. The Americans quite rightly put to me, “What about Abu Hamza? Whose hands are going up for a type 1 diabetic who is a double amputee, and for his associate, who is alleged to be bipolar? Who feels they ought to run such campaigns on their behalf to stop extradition?” How do the United States see the issue when they are trying to ensure that principles are applied and a precedent not set which would then create complete havoc in the justice system? The rule of law has to apply equally and sensitively, but it has to include rules to which we can all adhere.

The NatWest three, or the Enron three as the Americans prefer to call them, were totally innocent according to their campaigns, and even I began to be convinced that they were, until of course they reached the United States and pleaded guilty.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

The Enron three told me that if they pleaded not guilty in America and were found guilty they would get 35 years, but that if they pleaded guilty they would get five years. They were concerned about being forced into pleading guilty in America.

[Mr Blunkett]

That is often undertaken—albeit not to the degree that has just been described—in our court system to ensure that people can enter a plea bargain, so it is not unfamiliar to any of us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

It is a particular pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett). He and I crossed swords many times when he was Home Secretary. I am not remotely surprised to hear his reasonable tone in this debate or to hear of his compassionate action on Gary McKinnon, as both are entirely in line with his character. What is more, I can understand only too clearly why he took the stance that he did in the early 2000s, because at that time the extradition situation around Europe and elsewhere was a mess, and it was sometimes very difficult to get people extradited from other countries. It is therefore wholly unsurprising that after 9/11 he took the action that he did. That does not mean that I agree with him about that action, but it is entirely understandable that it was taken. The House will not be surprised that I think it went too far because of, in my view, the pre-eminence of justice in this matter. There is a balance between justice and security, but security without justice is a very fragile security. It is our job to defend our lives and way of life, and in this respect I do not think that we have done so.

Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), I do not speak as a criminal lawyer. What I am about to say is no doubt obvious to all criminal lawyers, but not necessarily so to the rest of us who are laymen. Let me make a simple point. In this country, we presume innocence. That has all sorts of implications that we do not think about most of the time. For example, it means that unless there is a threat to a jury, an ongoing threat to the public, or a risk of absconding, we generally give bail—we do not imprison people who are awaiting trial if we can avoid it. If we do imprison someone, we put them on remand, where they are treated as innocent. They wear their own clothes; they are not made to work; they are called “Sir”: all sorts of things apply to prisoners on remand that do not apply to other prisoners, either in this country or, indeed, abroad. The presumption of innocence has a distinct effect on how we treat people.

Let us compare that with people who are extradited. They feel as though they have been deported. They are in a foreign prison, often with lower standards; my hon. Friend referred to that in terms of Greece. They are not only in a different culture, but often surrounded by people speaking a different language. They are, in effect, in psychological isolation; one might think of it as psychological solitary. They are often thousands of miles away from their family. They are viewed as an alien in the institution in which they are held. That, of itself, is a very serious punishment of people we are presuming innocent at this stage of the process.

In addition, such people face a different justice system; I will describe it only as lightly as that. As was alluded to in the context of the NatWest three, this is a justice system that is not above saying, “Here is a plea bargain. Either you plead guilty or you’re going to stay in this nasty Texan jail for the next two years while we think up the case against you.” That is different from what they face here—and, frankly, I do not think that it is justice. At worst, it is a justice system that is actually corrupt, as we have seen in Greece. Although I understand the ex-Home Secretary’s point of view, this was not new to us even when the EAW was created. I had a constituent who was one of the plane spotters and who was locked up, in effect, for political reasons and not given what I would judge to be anything like a fair trial—and, of course, he was tried for doing something that was not illegal in this country. That is, at this stage, how we treat people who are presumed innocent under our system.

[John Hemming]

I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that that supports a strong argument that, where possible, any prosecutions where there are alternative forums should be in the home forum?

[Mr Davis]

I entirely agree. That is very much the thrust of what I will say in the next few minutes.

Let me come back to the thought process behind this—the intent behind what the then Home Secretary was trying to achieve, with which, as I said, I sympathise. The EAW, the extradition treaty and the 2003 Act were all aimed at dealing with terrorism. What has been the consequence of that? A parliamentary answer told us that between 2003 and 2009 there were 63 extraditions to the USA, of which precisely one involved a terrorist. A number of the others involved serious crimes—although I have to wonder about the two people who were extradited for “satellite signal theft”; Rupert Murdoch’s reach is obviously longer than I thought—but there was only one terrorist extradition. When I looked at it the other way around—extraditions from the Americans to us—I was unable to find any record of terrorists being extradited here. I asked people in the Library to look at it for me. They searched through all the available records and could not find any examples. We should keep in mind that the rather draconian process that we have, which was put in place to defend us against terrorism, does not appear to have had much impact in that respect. In practice, the outcome is much more mundane. The truth of the matter is that we will have far more Gary McKinnons extradited than Osama bin Ladens.

Because of the terrorist problem, the international crime problem, and the pressure for a fast agreement, we have left out some proper protections in the agreements that we have made, particularly with America. Debating this when he was in opposition, the current Attorney-General said that

“we chose in the 2003 Act, bizarrely, to get rid of the protection that existed in article 7(1) of the 1957 convention on extradition, which allowed an extradition to be prevented if the person was being sent to an inappropriate forum for the trial…Every other country has that safeguard. The Irish, who regard themselves as close partners and friends of the United States, and who have an extradition arrangement, have a forum clause in their treaty, which enables the question of the appropriate forum to be considered.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2006; Vol. 448, c. 1419.]

He is right. Not only the Irish, but Norway, Switzerland, Holland, France and Germany all have such provision. In fact, the Germans’ law will not allow the extradition of any of their citizens outside their country. Similarly, two Commonwealth countries—Australia and New Zealand, two of America’s closest allies in the war on terror—have total discretion over who among their own nationals they allow to be extradited. The idea that we are somehow at odds with the accepted—and, indeed, acceptable—approach among the western nations in their battle with terrorism is nonsense.