| answer text |
<p>The Government agrees with the proposals of Fair Trials International (FTI) in
their May 2011 report on the Arrest Warrant insofar as it agrees that appropriate
safeguards should be in place for those subject to extradition proceedings.</p><p>In
particular, the Government agrees with FTI that both the issuing and the executing
authorities should consider seriously the question of proportionality as it relates
to the Arrest Warrant. That is why this year the Government made significant reforms
to the Extradition Act 2003 in the Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014
to ensure that a UK judge must consider whether the alleged conduct and likely sentence
a person will receive if extradited and convicted is sufficiently serious to make
the person’s extradition proportionate. This is complemented by an administrative
proportionality check, undertaken by the National Crime Agency (NCA), which identifies
the most trivial requests when they are first received and refuses to certify them.</p><p>Since
the measures were commenced on 21 July 2014, 21 Arrest Warrants have been refused
by the NCA on proportionality grounds.</p><p>These changes are all designed to ensure
that UK citizens benefit from adequate protections whilst allowing our police and
prosecutors to benefit from the Arrest Warrant in the fight against crime.</p><p>It
should also be noted that the Second Generation of the Schengen Information System
(SIS II) requires Member States to consider the question of proportionality before
uploading an Arrest Warrant to that system for transmission. Therefore, when the UK
connects to SIS II there will be a legal requirement on all other Member States operating
SIS II to consider proportionality before transmitting an Arrest Warrant to the UK.
The Government expects to connect to SIS II in the coming months.</p><p>The Government
also agrees with FTI that, in general, where an executing authority has refused an
Arrest Warrant the issuing authority should withdraw the Arrest Warrant if it has
also been sent to other Member States. SIS II will allow refused Arrest Warrants to
be ‘flagged’ on this system, notifying other Member States that a case has been refused.
Thus, if a UK court refuses an Arrest Warrant all other Member States using SIS II
will be made aware of this fact.</p><p>The Government also agrees with FTI that the
executing States should seek from issuing States further information and guarantees,
before deciding whether to execute Arrest Warrants in cases where evidence has been
adduced of a serious risk of infringement of fundamental rights. UK courts can and
do seek such guarantees (e.g. assurances as to prison conditions).</p><p>The Government
also agrees with FTI that those subject to Arrest Warrants should receive legal representation
in the executing State, if they so wish. Where the individual concerned seeks legal
advice and representation for proceedings in the issuing State, any application should
be made in accordance with the rules governing the provision of such services in the
issuing State.</p><p>On 6 October 2014, new EU Justice Commissioner, Vera Jourová,
said, "re-opening the [Arrest Warrant] at this point in time could be counter-productive,
given</p><p>the divergent views which could be expressed in the Council. I am of the
opinion that we should focus on implementing already adopted legislation, on getting
the instruments still on the table adopted as soon as possible and on improving cooperation
between national authorities". As such, it seems unlikely the Commission intends
to bring forward any proposals in the short-term.</p><p>That is why we have put in
place new safeguards in UK law.</p><p> </p>
|
|
