Police and Justice Bill — 11 Jul 2006 at 19:34

The Majority carried an amendment that would mean that an independent judge would be able to rule on whether a defendant should be tried in Britain instead of being extradited. This would be implemented through Schedule 14 of the Police and Justice Bill (here) which, in turn, would have amended the conditions of the Extradition Act 2003. However, it was ultimately defeated by the Commons.

The United States had thus far failed to ratify the 2003 extradition treaty that was signed on 31st March 2003 by David Blunkett (while Home Secretary) and by John Ashcroft (while Attorney General of the United States). However, as Britain had passed the Extradition Act in November 2003, Britain now had extradition obligations towards the United States that were not reciprocated.

This amendment, therefore, was an attempt to wrest back some of these powers to maintain some principles of reciprocity. It can also be seen as a means to persuade the United States to ratify the treaty which would have made extradition proceedings largely reciprocal.

Charter barrister Ben Cooper writes in the London Advocate, Number 42, September 2007 that:

The Criminal Bar Association, in conjunction with Justice, Liberty and the CBI, lobbied Parliament in November 2006 to introduce a forum amendment to the Extradition Act. However, despite a Lords' majority in favour, the government resisted its introduction. The amendment would have permitted an independent judge to decide the appropriate forum for trial where a case could be tried in either the US or the UK. This would have helped the CPS out of the difficulty that they face in acting for the USA while simultaneously considering the merits of a domestic prosecution.

Debate in Parliament | Source |