House of Lords Select Committee on Extradition Law Call for Evidence: Metropolitan Police Service Response
General
1. Does the UK’s extradition law provide just outcomes?
1.1 In order to contextualise the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) response to this question, some background data is provided. Between April 2013 and March 2014, there were 1096 requests for extradition.
1.2 MPS data shows that of the 1096 requests, 582 resulted in an arrest or removal:
1.3 In order to fully assess whether or not the extradition law provides ‘just outcomes’ it is the MPS view that outcome data from several sources should be analysed. These sources are the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), The National Crime Agency (NCA) and the Home Office. The NCA are the central authority for EAWs and the Home Office are the central authority for Part 2 extradition warrants. Analysis of data relating to incoming and outgoing Part 1, 2 and 3 extradition warrants from these agencies would properly inform a response to the question.
1.4 The Extradition Act 2003 has been used as an effective law enforcement tool to extradite high risk offenders living in the UK. Examples of these can be provided as an illustration if necessary.
1.5 Conversely, there have been a number of cases which have attracted negative media coverage and have questioned the effectiveness and fairness of the Extradition Act. Examples of this are also available as an illustration.
1.6 The MPS will only take action in relation to either Part 1 or Part 2 warrants once they have been passed through the designated authority (the NCA or the Home Office). This effectively provides a safeguard for the MPS that the warrant is valid.
1.7 Extradition is a complex subject. However, the MPS have a dedicated Extradition Unit of 18 staff which provides 24/7 specialist advice and assistance to officers and partner agencies.
1.8 There are differences between the process for Part 1 and Part 2 warrants which, in practice, mean that Part 1 warrants are less complex to obtain.
1.9 Part 1 of the Extradition Act (which relates to applications received by the UK to export fugitives from the UK to any of the other 26 Member States of the European Union), has a framework which standardises the system making it practical to follow from an enforcement perspective. It has removed the previous complexity that arose from having to understand different bilateral arrangements.
1.10 The UK process for dealing with Part 1 European Arrest Warrants differs from the process in other member states. The incoming request is received by the NCA as the designated authority for receipt of the EAW. The NCA has a responsibility to certify warrants and quality assure them to ensure that the requirements of section 2 of the 2003 act are met prior to dissemination to the relevant law enforcement agency.
1.11 The MPS considers that this certification by the NCA acts as a safeguard and prevents the dismissal of a warrant due to ‘a want of particularity’ (a technicality).
1.12 The Extradition Act gives either the wanted person or the requesting state a right of appeal against the decision of the district judge. This provides an opportunity for a challenge to the validity of the warrant on both sides and the opportunity for the courts to further consider the human rights of the subject wanted on warrant.
1.13 The MPS supports the continued use of the European Arrest Warrant and considers it a vital crime fighting tool. It provides the necessary legal power to remove high risk and dangerous fugitives from the UK, safeguarding the British public. It also allows the import extradition of outstanding wanted fugitives and enables UK law enforcement agencies to bring them to justice.
1.14 The EAW standardised framework does not exist for Part 2 warrants and some countries are required to provide full evidence files. In practice, this means that Part 2 extradition warrants are more complex to manage and often take longer to process.
1.15 There are some states that are not designated as either category 1 or 2 territories. In these circumstances, extradition is still possible using legislation under section 194 which makes provision for ‘Special extradition arrangements’ with the non-designated category countries, but from a policing perspective these are not common.
1.16 Prior extradition arrangements under the 1957 convention required the authority to proceed with the warrant from the Secretary of State and all documents were received in paper format through diplomatic channels. This was a much slower process than the current one.
2. Is extradition law fit for purpose in an era of increasingly multi-jurisdictional crime?
2.1 The MPS supports the view that EAW is an effective system which provides police with powers to deal with trans-national crime and criminals more effectively. It is simpler, faster, more economical and more reliable than the systems that pre-dated its introduction.
2.2 Trans-national crime is far more prevalent than it has been historically. Organised criminal groups run their enterprises across European boundaries and citizens of the EU have much greater freedom to travel across the continent. Criminals have depended on borders to shield themselves and evidence of their crimes from detection. Judicial and police cooperation is essential in order to tackle cross border crime and to take away those barriers. To illustrate this point, the MPS arrested 582 persons wanted for extradition between April and March 2014. 532 were Foreign National Offenders.
3. To what extent is extradition used as a first resort when prosecuting a crime committed in another jurisdiction? Should greater use be made of other remedies?
3.1 Extradition is used as a first resort in one of two scenarios:
3.2 In these circumstances, a decision to instigate extradition proceedings will be considered by the Crime Manager of the investigation Operational Command Unit (OCU) in terms of proportionality, cost versus outcome and the likelihood of the offender being brought to justice.
3.3 An alternative remedy is one of ‘transfer proceedings’. This occurs when a fugitive is a national of a country that will not extradite their own nationals. In these cases, a request could be made for that person to be prosecuted through their own criminal justice system. There is, however, no data available which shows if, or how often, this has been used.
3.4 The MPS will often consider the used of the Immigration Act 2014, if appropriate.
European Arrest Warrant
4. On balance, has the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) improved extradition arrangements between EU Member States?
4.1 The MPS considers the EAW to be an efficient extradition tool built on mutual recognition of criminal justice systems between member states with an obligation to comply with a properly constructed warrant.
4.2 The barriers which previously existed have been removed. Under previous arrangements, many European states (for example, Germany, France and Poland) did not allow their nationals to be extradited and required them to be tried in their home state. There are, however, some non-EU states where this is still the case.
4.3 Prior to the introduction of the EAW, extradition between participating European states could take many months in uncontested cases, and many years in those instances where the case was contested.
4.4 By comparison, EAW data from the Commission to the European Parliament shows that across the EU it now takes, on average, 17 days to surrender a wanted person in cases with consent and 48 days in non-consensual cases.
4.5 The MPS acknowledges that the EAW is not a perfect system. There has been some criticism that individuals have been subject to extradition for relatively minor cases. However, there are proposed changes to the Extradition Act 2003 to include a new section which introduces a proportionality test which may address these concerns (Section 21A -Person not convicted: human rights and proportionality).
4.6 The MPS SCO7 Extradition Unit have been liaising and working with EU countries to improve the quality of the evidence they send with the EAWs.
4.7 MPS supports the proposal there should be a proportionality test for extradition requests. This would assist to minimise the extradition requests for those matters which may be considered in the UK as minor. If an accused/wanted person is believed to be residing in the UK and their location is unknown, significant time and resources are often used to locate and arrest the subject of the EAW, regardless of the severity of the offence.
4.8 The MPS view is that, in practitioner’s terms, executing Part 1 extradition requests (once the subject is located) is uncomplicated.
4.9 In addition, the collection of Part 3 extradition warrants from overseas countries presents few challenges.
4.10 There have been occasions when problems have been encountered when bringing an accused into the UK under a Part 3 warrant when the accused is not a British National and there is an absence of a passport or ID card.
4.11 There are no anticipated adverse implications to the UK enforcement role as a result of post-Lisbon Treaty arrangements.
Prima Facie Case
5. In circumstances where a prima facie case is not required, do existing statutory bars (the human rights bar, for instance) provide sufficient protection for requested people?
5.1 The MPS has a role in the enforcement of Part 1 & Part 2 extradition warrants. Once the EAW has been passed to the MPS, there is no provision for discretion to be exercised in terms of executing the warrant. The MPS are not the appropriate authority to comment on this issue.
UK/US Extradition
6. Are the UK’s extradition arrangements with the US comparable to other territories that do not need to show a prima facie case? If so, should the US nonetheless be required to provide a prima facie case, and why?
6.1 The MPS is not the most appropriate authority to comment on the issue of the provision of a prima facie case by the US.
6.2 As above. The MPS is not the best placed authority to comment on the issue of the provision of a prima facie case by the US.
Political and Policy Implications of Extradition
7. What effect has the removal of the Home Secretary’s role in many aspects of the extradition process had on extradition from the UK?
To what extent is it beneficial to have a political actor in the extradition process, in order to take account of any diplomatic consequences of judicial decisions?
7.1 There are no significant implications for the MPS in respect of this
8. To what extent are decisions of where to prosecute certain crimes and whether to extradite influenced by broader political, diplomatic or security considerations?
8.1 The MPS has a law enforcement role within the extradition process. This is governed by the Extradition Act 2003 and the central authorities (NCA and Home Office). Our role is to receive the extradition warrant and to ensure that the central authorities have sanctioned them for execution. The MPS does not have discretion to refuse to execute extradition requests. As such, any third-party influences which affect decisions to prosecute are not an issue for the MPS to consider.
Human Rights Bar and Assurances
9. Is the human rights bar as worded in the Extradition Act 2003, and as implemented by the courts, sufficient to protect requested people’s human rights?
9.1 The MPS is not the most appropriate authority to comment on this.
10. Is the practice of accepting assurances from requesting states to offset human rights concerns sufficiently robust to ensure that requested people’s rights are protected?
10.1 The MPS is not the most appropriate authority to comment on these issues. However, we believe that that monitoring of assurances should be carried out by the body ordering extradition. Assurances should be sought when considering the ordering of extradition on an individual from an overseas state.
Other Bars to Extradition
11. What will be the impact of the forum bar brought into force under the Crime and Courts Act 2013?
11.1 The MPS is not the most appropriate authority to comment on this.
12. What will be the impact of the proportionality bar in relation to European Arrest Warrant applications recently brought into force under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014?
12.1 The MPS supports the proposal there should be a proportionality test for extradition requests. This would assist to minimise the extradition requests for those matters which may be considered in the UK as minor. If an accused/wanted person is believed to be residing in the UK and their location is unknown, significant time and resources are often used to locate and arrest the subject of the EAW, regardless of the severity of the offence.
Right to Appeal and Legal Aid
13. To what extent have changes to the availability of legal aid affected extradition practice, and the provision of specialist legal advice to requested persons?
13.1 The MPS is not the appropriate authority to provide an answer to this question.
Devolution
14. Are the devolution settlements in Scotland and Northern Ireland fit for purpose in this area of law?
14.1 The MPS is not the most appropriate authority to comment on this.
1