Police and Justice Bill — extradition to the US — 1 Nov 2006 at 18:02

Lord Newby voted with the majority (Content).

Those voting Content successfully carried an amendment that would mean the United States would still have to meet a prima facie case to extradite someone from the United Kingdom. This was the second time this was voted on in the Lords, and would be implemented by removing the United States from the list of Part 2 Territories under the Extradition Act 2003.

The reasons behind this division were as follows: Up to this point, extradition between the United Kingdom and the United States was covered by the extradition treaty of 1972. Under this, if the United States had wanted to extradite someone from the United Kingdom, it had to meet a prima facie case to succeed; if the United Kingdom had wanted to extradite someone from the United States, it had to meet the test of probable cause. Prima facie is a more onerous requirement than probable cause.

The new 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) – and without parliamentary scrutiny – tried to address this imbalance: Britain would still have to show probable cause but the United States would no longer have to meet the prima facie case and could show reasonable suspicion instead. Reasonable suspicion is not the same as probable cause but, given the differences between the two countries' legal systems, it was argued that this was the fairest option.

The United States was slow to ratify the 2003 treaty meaning that the 1972 treaty should still have been in effect. However, in November 2003, the Extradition Act was passed by the United Kingdom with the result that the United States did not have to provide the United Kingdom with any evidence for extradition (not even reasonable suspicion) while the United Kingdom still had to show the United States probable cause. (For more explanation of this controversy see here).

This lack of balance caused controversy in the United Kingdom - for example with the extradition of the Enron bankers. In spite of the fact that the 2003 Extradition Treaty had now been ratified by the United States and there was now a greater degree of reciprocity in extradition proceedings, those voting Content still argued that the proceedings were not reciprocal.

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (Content)Minority (Not-Content)Turnout
Con113 (+1 tell) 053.3%
Green1 0100.0%
Ind Lab1 0100.0%
Lab0 135 (+2 tell)62.8%
LDem60 (+1 tell) 077.2%
UUP0 3100.0%
Crossbench12 1212.8%
Total:187 15048.5%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

Lords for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible lord who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Party | Vote

NamePartyVote
no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

There are lots of plans afoot, including extensive redevelopment of the site and plans for new functionality. To keep up with what's happening, please check out the blog. We're working on updating all the contact details throughout the site, but if you'd like to talk to us about the project, please email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Advertisement - Helping keeping PublicWhip alive