• Home
• UK Politics
• World Politics
• Policy
• Media
• Lifestyle
• Sport
• Contributors
• Topics

Another Euro Climbdown On Extradition On Its Way?

Nick de Bois explains why Lord Justice Scott Baker's Review of Extradition Arrangements must be debated.

By Nick de Bois

24 Oct 2011, 08:56

Only a week ago I wrote about my high hopes for the Lord Justice Scott Baker review. Having now read through all the 488 pages of the review, especially the many pages on the functioning of the European Arrest Warrant, I am concerned that no Government time will be given in order for Members of Parliament to debate its findings. In answer to a question to the Leader of the House last week I received no such assurance that time would be available even though he recognised how important the issue of our extradition arrangements is.

While there are some elements of the Review which I welcome that evidence some of the European Arrest Warrant’s failings, the conclusive phrase “we believe that the European Arrest Warrant scheme has worked reasonably well”  is troubling. "Reasonable" in this case seems to acknowledge that there are failings and we should tolerate them. It is not however "reasonable " when those failings mean months of false imprisonment, and abuse of an individual's judicial rights, as in the case of my constituent Andrew Symeou over the last two years.

Throughout the Review the basis of the European Arrest Warrant - mutual recognition in judicial matters - is celebrated and promoted, but never questioned. At a time when, as we are all aware, many British citizens are questioning our relationship with the European Union, such adherence to mutual recognition almost without question is difficult to understand. I am yet to find anyone who would happily claim that the UK’s judicial system works in an identical manner to Romania’s, Greece’s, Hungary's or Luxembourg’s for example. Yet the Lord Justice Scott Baker Review insists this to be the case. With this insistence, many of the criticisms levelled towards the European Arrest Warrant, including the  lack of bail for “fugitives” and the lack of dual criminality testing, are therefore dismissed from further consideration.

The debate surrounding the European Arrest Warrant and its detrimental effect on human rights are also glossed over. Lord Justice Scott Baker concludes that because the UK, along with all other member states, has in statute the Human Rights Act 1998, there are never going to be any breaches of human rights. He  there fore concludes there is no reason to even consider human rights breaches as a possibility. Again mutual recognition in judicial proceedings fails us. Just  because one state purports to do something, it certainly does not mean that every European Union state acts in the same manner. My constituent Andrew Symeou, for example, was entitled to have all documentation and charges in English. This did not happen, yet Scott Baker would have us think it did.

Finally the review  deals with implicit criticisms of the potential failings of the European Arrest Warrant by claiming they are unfounded because such instances are yet to occur. This is a flawed logic. Even if something is yet to occur, we should surely be aware of its potential to occur and seek to prevent it from occurring? If all legislating was to only occur after an event, we would only ever be legislating after a crisis, in a panic and without sufficient forethought.

I have called on the Government to hold a debate on the findings of the Lord Justice Scott Baker Review because its potential to shape the future of the UK’s extradition arrangements is significant. I only hope that time can be found.