| answer text |
<p>The reforms this Government made to the Arrest Warrant in the Anti-social Behaviour,
Crime and Policing Act 2014 address the concerns of Parliament and others regarding
lengthy pre-trial detention in other Member States following surrender using the Arrest
Warrant (such as in the case of Andrew Symeou). <br><br>The Home Secretary directly
acknowledged those concerns in her statement to Parliament of 16 October 2012 when
she said the "Arrest Warrant has had some success in streamlining the extradition
process within the EU, but there have also been problems there are issues around the
lengthy pre-trial detention of some British citizens overseas." (Official Report,
Col 164, 16 October 2012).<br><br>Section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003, which was
introduced by the 2014 Act, was developed with those concerns and the case of Andrew
Symeou in mind. <br><br>This is witnessed by what the Home Secretary said to Parliament
on 9 July 2013: "The change that I am introducing would have allowed Andrew Symeou
to raise, in his extradition hearing, the issue of whether a decision to charge him
and a decision to try him had been taken. It would likely have prevented his extradition
at the stage he was surrendered and, quite possibly, altogether." (Official Report,
Col 177, 9 July 2013)<br><br>The Government also looked closely at the manner in which
Ireland had dealt with the issue of lengthily pre-trial detention, considering their
‘charge and try’ provision and the extent to which it has had an impact on Arrest
Warrant cases (for instance, as shown by the judgment in Minister for Justice, Equality
and Law Reform v Bailey (21 March 2012).<br><br>In framing the section, the Government
also recognised that the legal systems of some other Member States (e.g. Sweden) require
that the person be present in the jurisdiction in order for the decisions to charge
and try to be taken. Full consideration was given to this position, with section 12A
being clear that in cases where the decisions have not been taken, the person’s absence
from the issuing State must be the sole reason for that failure if extradition is
to take place. In all cases, if the issuing State is not trial-ready then extradition
cannot take place.</p><p> </p>
|
|
