Police and Justice Bill — extradition — 1 Nov 2006 at 18:33
Lord Alliance voted with the majority (Content).
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.The Treaty would not come into full effect until 26th April 2007 (see here) and there was still therefore an opportunity to make amendments.
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.
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.
|Party||Majority (Content)||Minority (Not-Content)||Turnout|
|Con||102 (+1 tell)||0||48.6%|
|Lab||0||127 (+2 tell)||60.3%|
|LDem||57 (+1 tell)||0||73.4%|
|Lord Boston of Faversham||Crossbench||no|
|Viscount Colville of Culross||Crossbench (front bench)||no|
|Baroness Howarth of Breckland||Crossbench (front bench)||no|