Clause 2 - Request for arrest and surrender
International Criminal Court Bill [Lords]
10:30 am
Mr Frank Cook (Stockton North, Labour)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 39, in clause 5, page 4, line 10, at end insert—
`and
(c) that the person brought before the court is not a citizen of the United Kingdom'.
No. 40, in clause 5, page 4, line 42, at end insert—
`(10) If the competent court is satisfied that the person brought before the court is a citizen of the United Kingdom it shall adjourn the proceedings and notify the Secretary of State.
(11) On receipt of notification from the competent court that the warrant of the ICC refers to a citizen of the United Kingdom the Secretary of State will commence proceedings under Article 19 of ICC Statute to challenge the jurisdiction of the ICC.
(12) If the challenge to the ICC under subsection (11) is unsuccessful—
(a) an enquiry shall be held by a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament as to why the ICC had satisfied itself that the United Kingdom had not properly discharged its obligations under Article 17, and if the Committee finds that the judgement of the ICC was in the judgement of the Committee unreasonable it shall request Her Majesty's Government to give notification of withdrawal under Article 127;
(b) the competent court shall resume its proceedings and make a delivery order.''.'.
The purpose of the amendments is to to flag up potential problems with the practical operation of the statute and the International Criminal Court. I shall discuss in detail how they relate to those problems. I do not want to repeat my remarks later in our deliberations, but I think that it is appropriate to examine the statute and its potential consequences now.
The amendments are intended to emphasise a Government's duty towards the security of their country's citizens. They would apply if the ICC were to issue a warrant for the arrest of a British subject, or in connection with an offence that had taken place on British territory, where normal jurisdiction would properly belong to the United Kingdom. The amendments are designed to address situations where something has gone wrong with the system of complementarity as established under the statute.
In the normal course of events, a British citizen who commits such an offence is brought to justice by British courts. We are looking at a case in which the established system has failed and the ICC has issued a warrant for the arrest of a person in the United Kingdom. The amendments would make it the first duty of the Home Secretary to check whether that person was a British subject. If
``the person referred to is a citizen of the United Kingdom or the crime alleged was carried out on the territory of the United Kingdom'',
additional duties are imposed on the Home Secretary. He would have to appeal for jurisdiction under the statute and find out why the ICC had issued a warrant for a British subject's arrest in the UK, where we would normally have brought that person to trial ourselves. It would appear that, in such a case, the whole ICC system had gone wrong. The Home Secretary would have a duty under article 19 of the ICC statute to say that the person should properly be tried in the United Kingdom and to appeal for jurisdiction.