Schedule 2 - Delivery up of persons subject to criminal proceedings, &c. Question proposed, That this schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill.
International Criminal Court Bill [Lords]
12:00 pm
Professor Ross Cranston (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; Dudley North, Labour)
In terms of paragraphs 2 and 12, there are two ends of the spectrum. At one end, there is the matter of simply informing someone of something—``consult'' may mean that; at the other end is a situation in which the person informed has a veto. Consultation falls across the spectrum. One consults rather than simply informs because one discusses the matter with a person and takes into account what a person may say. As the explanatory memorandum makes clear, the purpose of consultations would be to
``determine when and how the surrender will take place.''
Consultation would occur so that matters would be discussed and taken into account before a decision was made. The ICC would not have a veto. However, paragraph 12 contains the word ``inform''—there is no consultation there. That deals with the first and fourth points made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough.
The second point that the hon. and learned Gentleman made was about paragraph 2(5). There is a distinction between discontinuance of proceedings, and a situation in which proceedings are taken to completion. Under article 20 a person who is tried cannot be tried for a second time following an acquittal. However, one may start proceedings that are discontinued, which under our domestic law is not a bar on restarting proceedings.