DOCSLIB.ORG

The Human Rights Implications of UK Extradition Policy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Human Rights Implications of UK Extradition Policy JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS Human Rights Implications of UK Extradition Policy Written Evidence Contents Written Evidence submitted by Fair Trials International (EXT 1) ............................. 3 Written Evidence submitted by The Freedom Association (EXT 2) ..................... 24 Written Evidence submitted by an individual who wishes to remain anonymous (EXT 3) ..................................................................................................... 45 Additional Written Evidence submitted by an individual who wishes to remain anonymous (EXT 3A) .................................................................................................. 59 Further Additional Written Evidence submitted by an individual who wishes to remain anonymous (EXT 15) ..................................................................................... 64 Written Evidence submitted by Professor Monica Lugato, Faculty of Law, LUMSA University of Rome (EXT 4) ............................................................................ 72 Written Evidence submitted by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association (EXT 5) ........................................................................................................................... 75 Written Evidence submitted by Liberty (EXT 6) ...................................................... 91 Letter submitted to the Chair of the Committee by David Bermingham (EXT 7) ..................................................................................................................................... 126 Written Evidence submitted by the Redress Trust (REDRESS) (EXT 8) ................ 128 Letter submitted to the Joint Committee on Human Rights from the Law Society (EXT 9) ........................................................................................................... 135 Statement submitted by Mr Mark Turner, father of Michael Turner (EXT 10) ... 136 Written Evidence submitted by the Crown Prosecution Service (EXT 12) ....... 137 Written Evidence submitted by Mr Harvey A Silverglate (EXT 13) ..................... 143 Letter from the Chair, to Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke QC MP, Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (EXT 16) .................................................................... 160 Written Evidence submitted by Crown Prosecution Service (EXT 17) .............. 162 Additional Written Evidence submitted by the Crown Prosecution Service (EXT 17A) ............................................................................................................................ 168 Letter submitted to the Committee Chair by David Bermingham (EXT 19) .... 172 Written Evidence submitted by JUSTICE (EXT 20) ................................................. 175 Letter submitted to the Committee Chair by Stephen Parkinson (EXT 21) ...... 178 Letter submitted to the Committee Chair by Michael Hann (EXT 22) ............. 180 Written Evidence submitted by Fair Trials International (EXT 1) Additional Written Evidence submitted by Liberty (EXT 24) ............................... 182 Additional Written Evidence submitted by Fair Trials International (EXT 25) .... 187 Letter submitted to the Committee Chair, by Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke QC MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (EXT 026) ........................... 200 Written Evidence submitted by John Hardy QC (EXT 28) .................................. 204 Further letter submitted to the Committee Chair by Mr Michael Hann (EXT 29) ..................................................................................................................................... 211 Additional Written Evidence submitted by Charlotte Powell, Furnival Chambers (EXT 30) ................................................................................................... 212 Letter to the Chair, from Damian Green MP, Minister for Immigration, Home Office (EXT 32) ........................................................................................................... 217 2 Written Evidence submitted by Fair Trials International (EXT 1) Written Evidence submitted by Fair Trials International (EXT 1) Introduction 1. Fair Trials International (“FTI”) welcomes this opportunity to present its views on the European Arrest Warrant (“EAW”) and the European Investigation Order (“EIO”) to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The last decade has seen the European Union place unprecedented emphasis on increasing and improving the cooperation between EU Member States in criminal justice matters. Unfortunately, fundamental rights have been largely ignored in the process. Traditional safeguards and checks have been stripped away in an effort to streamline procedure in the fight against cross-border crime and create an “area of justice, freedom and security” within Europe. 2. Over 500 million people live in the EU and of these, 8 million live in a Member State other than their own. The right to freedom of movement between EU countries means that national boundaries no longer pose a significant obstacle to criminals. While FTI recognises that judicial and police cooperation is essential in order to tackle cross-border crime, we do not believe that this should be done at the expense of basic human rights. 3. The 9/11 attacks and the subsequent atrocities in London and Madrid acted as a catalyst for new EU laws designed to enhance cross-border cooperation between the police and the courts of different Member States. The EAW, the procedure for fast-track extradition between EU States, was the flagship measure. Now the EU is negotiating similar legislation to facilitate cross-border investigations and evidence-sharing in criminal cases: the EIO. 4. The cross-border cooperation which the EAW and the EIO represent is based on the principle of “mutual recognition”. Mutual recognition means that if one EU country makes a decision (for example that a person must be extradited to face a criminal trial or serve a sentence, or that evidence or assets should be frozen) that decision will be respected and applied throughout the EU, no questions asked. This philosophy is based on mutual trust in the ability of all EU Member States to deliver justice and uphold human rights. Unfortunately, the foundations for that trust are not yet in place. 5. Standards of justice vary greatly from one EU country to another and human rights do not receive the same respect in every Member State. Unfortunately, this reality has largely been ignored in the push for ever greater mutual recognition and cross-border cooperation. Defence rights have been sidelined, not strengthened, in the name of greater cooperation, and blind faith in the criminal justice systems of our EU neighbours has led to many cases of injustice. 3 Written Evidence submitted by Fair Trials International (EXT 1) 6. This submission examines the impact of mutual recognition on fundamental rights, specifically the effect of the EAW and the potential effect of the EIO. Section A of the submission deals with the EAW and Section B with the EIO. Section A: The European Arrest Warrant 7. Given the impact which extradition can have on the fundamental rights of the individuals involved, we are delighted that the Committee has decided to look at the human rights implications of the UK’s extradition arrangements. The Committee’s inquiry will make a valuable contribution to the Government’s review of extradition. FTI has submitted a detailed report to the Extradition Review Panel which sets out specific legislative amendments to the Extradition Act and the EU Framework Decision on the EAW (a copy of this report is attached to this submission: it can also be downloaded by clicking here). These suggested reforms are briefly summarised at paragraphs 15ff (below). 8. Although we recognise that the Committee’s inquiry will also consider the UK’s extradition arrangements with the United States, we have decided to focus on the operation of the EAW. Although the EAW accounts for the vast majority of the extraditions from the UK, it has received far less public and political attention than UK-US extradition. Figures from 2009 show that since 2003, 63 people were extradited to the US from the UK1, while in 2009/10 alone 699 people were extradited from the UK to other EU member states under the EAW. 9. The benefits of a streamlined system must be weighed against the heavy toll that extradition proceedings take on individuals. FTI’s casework team deals with numerous EAW cases each year. These cases provide a unique insight into the human costs of this fast-track extradition system. Summaries of a selection of these cases are annexed. FTI’s experience of EAW cases clearly demonstrates that the EAW is not operating “efficiently and in the interests of justice”.2 10. The surrender of individuals between States clearly has significant human rights implications, potentially engaging the right to protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”)), the right to liberty and security (Article 5 ECHR), the right to a fair trial (Article 6 ECHR), and the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 ECHR). To the extent that many of those wanted under EAWs are 1 Source: response to a written Parliamentary Question by Paul Holmes, HC Deb 27 January 2009 c287W 2 Written ministerial statement by the Secretary of State for the Home Office, Rt Hon Theresa May MP, Wednesday 8 September 2010, announcing the purpose and scope of the Government’s extradition review 4 Written
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Extradition Act 2003 (Overseas Territories) Order 2016
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2016 No. 990 EXTRADITION The Extradition Act 2003 (Overseas Territories) Order 2016 Made - - - - 12th October 2016 Laid before Parliament 19th October 2016 Coming into force - - 10th November 2016 At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 12th day of October 2016 Present, The Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty in Council Her Majesty, in exercise of the powers conferred upon Her by sections 177, 178 and 224(2) of the Extradition Act 2003(a), section 1(2) of the Anguilla Act 1980( b), the British Settlements Acts 1887 and 1945( c), section 2(1)(b) of the Cyprus Act 1960( d), section 112 of the Saint Helena Act 1833( e), sections 5 and 7 of the West Indies Act 1962( f), and in exercise of all the other powers vested in Her, is pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order, and it is ordered, as follows: Citation, commencement and extent 1. —(1) This Order may be cited as the Extradition Act 2003 (Overseas Territories) Order 2016 (“the Order”) and, subject to article 9, comes into force on 10th November 2016. (2) This Order extends to each British overseas territory listed in Schedule 1. Interpretation 2. —(1) In this Order, “Territory” means a British overseas territory listed in Schedule 1. (2) Subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), for the purposes of this Order the following are within the meaning of the expression “extradition territory”— (a) a territory listed in Schedule 2; and (a) 2003 c.41 as amended by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c.4), section 40(4) and Schedule 9, paragraph 81, the Police and Justice Act 2006 (c.48), section 42 and Schedule 13, paragraphs 1-3, 5, 8, 13-19, 25-26, the Policing and Crime Act 2009 (c.26), sections 70, 71, 73-76, 78, the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (c.22), section 50 and Schedule 20, paragraphs 4-6, 10-13, 15, the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (c.12), sections 160-164, 167, 169 and the Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations and Appeals) Order 2015 (S.I.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of the United Kingdom's
    A REVIEW OF THE UNITED KINGDOM’S EXTRADITION ARRANGEMENTS (Following Written Ministerial Statement by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of 8 September 2010) Presented to the Home Secretary on 30 September 2011 This report is also available online at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ ~ 2 ~ The Rt Hon Sir Scott Baker was called to the Bar in 1961, and practised in a range of legal areas, including criminal law and professional negligence. He became a Recorder in 1976 and was appointed as a High Court judge in 1988. In 1999, he presided over the trial of Great Western Trains following the Southall rail crash in 1997 and in the same year was the judge who tried Jonathan Aitken. He was the lead judge of the Administrative Court between 2000 and 2002 when he was appointed a Lord Justice of Appeal, presiding over the inquests into the deaths of Princess Diana and Dodi Al Fayed. He also sat regularly in the Divisional Court hearing appeals and judicial reviews in extradition cases. He retired in 2010 and is currently a Surveillance Commissioner, a member of the Bermuda Court of Appeal and a member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. David Perry QC is a barrister and joint head of chambers at 6 King’s Bench Walk, Temple. From 1991 to 1997, Mr Perry was one of the Standing Counsel to the Department of Trade and Industry. From 1997 to 2001, he was Junior Treasury Counsel to the Crown at the Central Criminal Court and Senior Treasury Counsel from 2001 until 2006, when he took silk.
    [Show full text]
  • The Extradition Act 2003 (Overseas Territories) Order 2016
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2016 No. 990 EXTRADITION The Extradition Act 2003 (Overseas Territories) Order 2016 Made - - - - 12th October 2016 Laid before Parliament 19th October 2016 Coming into force - - 10th November 2016 At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 12th day of October 2016 Present, The Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty in Council Her Majesty, in exercise of the powers conferred upon Her by sections 177, 178 and 224(2) of the Extradition Act 2003(a), section 1(2) of the Anguilla Act 1980( b), the British Settlements Acts 1887 and 1945( c), section 2(1)(b) of the Cyprus Act 1960( d), section 112 of the Saint Helena Act 1833( e), sections 5 and 7 of the West Indies Act 1962( f), and in exercise of all the other powers vested in Her, is pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order, and it is ordered, as follows: Citation, commencement and extent 1. —(1) This Order may be cited as the Extradition Act 2003 (Overseas Territories) Order 2016 (“the Order”) and, subject to article 9, comes into force on 10th November 2016. (2) This Order extends to each British overseas territory listed in Schedule 1. Interpretation 2. —(1) In this Order, “Territory” means a British overseas territory listed in Schedule 1. (2) Subject to paragraphs (4) and (5), for the purposes of this Order the following are within the meaning of the expression “extradition territory”— (a) a territory listed in Schedule 2; and (a) 2003 c.41 as amended by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c.4), section 40(4) and Schedule 9, paragraph 81, the Police and Justice Act 2006 (c.48), section 42 and Schedule 13, paragraphs 1-3, 5, 8, 13-19, 25-26, the Policing and Crime Act 2009 (c.26), sections 70, 71, 73-76, 78, the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (c.22), section 50 and Schedule 20, paragraphs 4-6, 10-13, 15, the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (c.12), sections 160-164, 167, 169 and the Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations and Appeals) Order 2015 (S.I.
    [Show full text]
  • Crime (International Co-Operation) Act 2003
    Source: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/32 Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 2003 CHAPTER 32 An Act to make provision for furthering co-operation with other countries in respect of criminal proceedings and investigations; to extend jurisdiction to deal with terrorist acts or threats outside the United Kingdom; to amend section 5 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 and make corresponding provision in relation to Scotland; and for connected purposes. [30th October 2003] BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— PART 1 MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS CHAPTER 1 MUTUAL SERVICE OF PROCESS ETC. Service of overseas process in the UK 1Service of overseas process (1)The power conferred by subsection (3) is exercisable where the Secretary of State receives any process or other document to which this section applies from the government of, or other authority in, a country outside the United Kingdom, together with a request for the process or document to be served on a person in the United Kingdom. (2)This section applies— (a)to any process issued or made in that country for the purposes of criminal proceedings, (b)to any document issued or made by an administrative authority in that country in administrative proceedings, (c)to any process issued or made for the purposes of any proceedings on an appeal before a court in that country against a decision in administrative proceedings, (d)to any document issued or made by an authority in that country for the purposes of clemency proceedings.
    [Show full text]
  • United Kingdom: Phase 2 Report on the Application of the Convention On
    DIRECTORATE FOR FINANCIAL AND ENTERPRISE AFFAIRS UNITED KINGDOM: PHASE 2 REPORT ON THE APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON COMBATING BRIBERY OF FOREIGN PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AND THE 1997 RECOMMENDATION ON COMBATING BRIBERY IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS This report was approved and adopted by the Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions on 17 March 2005. TABLE OF CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................4 1. Nature of the on-site visit ................................................................................................4 2. General observations .......................................................................................................5 a) Observations about system of government and legal system ....................................5 b) Economic factors .......................................................................................................6 c) General observations about the United Kingdom’s implementation of the Convention and 1997 Recommendation..........................................................7 d) Developments since the Phase 1 Examination...........................................................8 (i) Phase 1 and Phase 1 bis Examinations ..................................................................8 (ii) The Draft Corruption Bill ......................................................................................9 (iii) Other Legislative
    [Show full text]
  • Making Policy Stick Tackling Long-Term Challenges in Government
    Making policy stick Tackling long-term challenges in government Oliver Ilott, Joe Randall, Alex Bleasdale and Emma Norris Supported by Contents List of abbreviations 4 Summary 5 1. Introduction 8 What issues require a long-term focus? 8 Why does government find these long-term issues difficult? 9 Aims, method and structure of the report 9 2. The cycle of long-term policy making 11 The three phases of long-term policy making in detail 12 The dimensions of strategic long-term focus 14 3. The case studies 15 UK climate change policy, 2006 onwards 15 UK international development policy, 1997 onwards 22 Anti-poverty strategy in Ireland, 1997 to 2007 30 Rough sleepers policy in England, 1990 onwards 37 4. Analysis 47 Phase 1: Rising salience 47 Phase 2: Building blocks 51 Phase 3: Embedding 56 5. Conclusion 63 How to achieve strategic long-term focus 63 Achieving strategic long-term focus in the current context 64 Maintaining focus on the current government’s priorities 65 Appendix 1: Tools for strategic focus 67 Appendix 2: An evaluation tool to assess government’s long-term policy making 69 References 72 Acknowledgements 78 About the authors 79 Making policy stick: tackling long-term challenges in government 4 List of abbreviations CBI Confederation of British Industry CCC Committee on Climate Change CPA Combat Poverty Agency DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government DECC Department of Energy & Climate Change Defra Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs DETR Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions DfID
    [Show full text]
  • Autumn Conference
    Autumn Conference Bournemouth 19th – 23rd September 2009 Conference Directory A fresh start for Britain Choosing a different, better future All the big health debates under one roof THE HEALTH HOTEL Supported by: )%/7,$21)<*5)),)%/7,7)67-1+%(9-')%1(0%66%+) %785(%; 72")(1)6(%;)37)0&)5%-1175%1') Monday 21 September 8;12:3%;/%7)5 5)+8/,2//%1( < 85/);220 "-11-1+7,)&%77/)*25,)%576%1(&5%-16250%1%0& < 5%1.620)220 %7-)176%*)7; %1)/)'7-2135-25-7; %1(5%-(/); < 921220 "-//3%7-)176&)6%*)-17,)-&)5%/)02'5%76=,%1(6 %1(5%-(/); < 85/);220 Specialised Healthcare Alliance 5)(-7581',72)%/7,581',%521)66%5.)5 < %;9-):8-7) 927)*25,)%/7, 250%1%0& < 5)+21:)//220 !""# 250%1%0& %1()&%7) Supported by: < 85&)'.8-7)-+,'/-**)%55-277 )%/7,27)/)')37-21:-7,%1%((5)66&;250%1%0& Supported by: < 25',)67)58-7)-+,'/-**)%55-277(invitation only) Tuesday 22 September 1)-17,5)) %'./-1+'%1')5-6%1)/)'7-21-668) %1(5%-(/); < 5)+21:)//220 )5621%/-6-1+'%5) 7,)',2-')6:)*%')250%1%0& < 85/);220 ,))%/7,'%5)-1(8'%7-21,%//)1+) 5)+8/,2//%1( < 5%1.620)220 )0)17-%()'%() %'85)&; 5)+8/,2//%1( < %;9-):8-7) 520",-7),%//727,)72:1,%//<no longer a national health service? 2,18+, < 5)+21:)//220 %6,*25,)%/7, 3%;-1+7,)35-')*2548%/-7; %1(5%-(/); < 5%1.620)220 Health Hotel non-fringe members: 25025)-1*250%7-216))%77%',)(352+5%00)259-6-7 www.healthhotel.org.uk *;285)48-5)7,-6%(9)57-6)0)17-15%-//)/%5+)35-1725%8(-23/)%6)'217%'7 Introduction Contents Welcome to the Conference Directory for Features: the Liberal Democrat autumn 2009 federal Welcome to Bournemouth 3 conference.
    [Show full text]
  • Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [HL]
    Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [HL] EXPLANATORY NOTES Explanatory notes to the Bill, prepared by the Home Office, have been ordered to be published as HL Bill 3–EN EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Baroness Williams of Trafford has made the following statement under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998: In my view the provisions of the Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [HL] are compatible with the Convention rights. HL Bill 3 58/1 Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [HL] CONTENTS 1 Power of arrest for extradition purposes 2 Extent, commencement and short title Schedule — Power of arrest for extradition purposes Part 1 — Main amendments to the Extradition Act 2003 Part 2 — Consequential amendments HL Bill 3 58/1 Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill [HL] 1 A BILL TO Create a power of arrest, without warrant, for the purpose of extraditing people for serious offences. E IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present BParliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— 1 Power of arrest for extradition purposes The Schedule— (a) creates a power of arrest, without warrant, for the purpose of extraditing people for serious offences, and (b) contains consequential amendments and a power to make further 5 amendments. 2 Extent, commencement and short title (1) Any amendment or repeal made by this Act has the same extent within the United Kingdom as the provision amended or repealed. (2) The powers under sections 177 and 222 of the Extradition Act 2003 (extension 10 to British overseas territories, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man) may be exercised in relation to any amendment or repeal made by this Act of any part of that Act.
    [Show full text]
  • On Voting Intentions Inference from Twitter Content: a Case Study on UK 2010 General Election
    On voting intentions inference from Twitter content: a case study on UK 2010 General Election Vasileios Lampos Intelligent Systems Laboratory Computer Science Department University of Bristol [email protected] Abstract This is a report, where preliminary work regarding the topic of voting intention inference from Social Media { such as Twitter { is presented. Our case study is the UK 2010 General Election and we are focusing on predicting the percentages of voting intention polls (conducted by YouGov) for the three major political parties { Conservatives, Labours and Liberal Democrats { during a 5-month period before the election date (May 6, 2010). We form three methodologies for extracting positive or negative sentiment from tweets, which build on each other, and then propose two supervised models for turning sentiment into voting intention percentages. Interestingly, when the content of tweets is enriched by attaching synonymous words, a signif- icant improvement on inference performance is achieved reaching a mean absolute error of 4:34% ± 2:13%; in that case, the predictions are also shown to be statistically significant. The presented methods should be considered as work-in-progress; limitations and suggestions for future work appear in the final section of this script. 1. INTRODUCTION Information generated by users and published on the Social Web has enabled a new wave of experimentation and research in the past few years. There exist several works showing that textual `observations' coming from Social Media { such as Twitter { could, for example, be used to nowcast events emerging in the real world [Lampos and Cristianini 2011], understand general emotional figures in a population [Golder and Macy 2011; Lansdall-Welfare et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Download This Judgment
    Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 1296 (QB) Case No: HQ10D03060 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 24/05/2012 Before : THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : Carina Trimingham Claimant - and - Associated Newspapers Limited Defendant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Matthew Ryder QC & William Bennett (instructed by Mishcon de Reya ) for the Claimant Antony White QC & Alexandra Marzec (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP ) for the Defendant Hearing dates: 23,24,25,26,27 April 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Judgment Mr Justice Tugendhat : 1. By claim form issued on 11 August 2010 the Claimant (“Ms Trimingham”) complained that the Defendant had wrongfully published private information concerning herself in eight articles. 2. Mr Christopher Huhne MP had been re-elected as the Member of Parliament for Eastleigh in Hampshire at the General Election held in May 2010, just over a month before the first of the articles complained of. He became Secretary of State for Energy in the Coalition Government. He was one of the leading figures in the Government and in the Liberal Democrat Party. In 2008 Ms Trimingham and Mr Huhne started an affair, unknown to both Mr Huhne’s wife, Ms Pryce, and Ms Trimingham’s civil partner. By 2008 Mr Huhne had become the Home Affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats. At that time he had been married to Ms Pryce for almost 25 years. They had five children, three together, and two from Ms Pryce’s first marriage. Until 20 June 2010, Ms Trimingham was living with her civil partner. 3. As a result of the disclosure of the relationship between Mr Huhne and Ms Trimingham, Mr Huhne and Ms Pryce separated and subsequently divorced.
    [Show full text]
  • Extradition Bill 2003 Code of Practice
    Extradition Bill 2003 Code of Practice Consultation on Draft Code of Practice 9th June 2003 A consultation produced by the Home Office. This information is also available on the Home Office website www.homeoffice.gov.uk/inside/consults/current/index.html Contents Page Introduction---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 Executive Summary: Extradition Bill and Police Powers-------------------------4 Consultation Process required by the Bill---------------------------------------------6 Home Office Questions-----------------------------------------------------------------------7 How to respond---------------------------------------------------------------------------------9 What will happen next?---------------------------------------------------------------------11 Publicising results----------------------------------------------------------------------------11 Consultation Co-ordinator-----------------------------------------------------------------11 Consultation Criteria-------------------------------------------------------------------------12 List of Organisations and Individuals Consulted----------------------------------14 Code of Practice-------------------------------------------------------------------------------16 Introduction The purpose of this paper is to consult the police, extradition and criminal justice communities on a draft Code of Practice which provides guidance on the application and operation of police powers in extradition cases. The consultation is aimed at police
    [Show full text]
  • Extradition Act 2003, Part 1
    Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Extradition Act 2003, Part 1. (See end of Document for details) Extradition Act 2003 2003 CHAPTER 41 PART 1 EXTRADITION TO CATEGORY 1 TERRITORIES Commencement Information I1 Act wholly in force at 1.1.2004, see s. 221 and S.I. 2003/3103, art. 2 (subject to arts. 3-5) (as amended by S.I. 2003/3258 art. 2(2) and S.I. 2003/3312 art. 2(2)) Introduction Commencement Information I2 Act wholly in force at 1.1.2004, see s. 221 and S.I. 2003/3103, art. 2 (subject to arts. 3-5) (as amended by S.I. 2003/3258 art. 2(2) and S.I. 2003/3312 art. 2(2)) 1 Extradition to category 1 territories (1) This Part deals with extradition from the United Kingdom to the territories designated for the purposes of this Part by order made by the Secretary of State. (2) In this Act references to category 1 territories are to the territories designated for the purposes of this Part. (3) A territory may not be designated for the purposes of this Part if a person found guilty in the territory of a criminal offence may be sentenced to death for the offence under the general criminal law of the territory. 2 Extradition Act 2003 (c. 41) Part 1 – Extradition to category 1 territories Document Generated: 2021-08-27 Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Extradition Act 2003, Part 1. (See end of Document for details) Commencement Information I3 Act wholly in force at 1.1.2004, see s.
    [Show full text]