Clause 22 - Unscheduled landing

International Criminal Court Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committees, 1 May 2001, 11:00 am

International Criminal Court Bill Next clause » « Previous clause


Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Mrs Cheryl Gillan

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I have a simple question for the Solicitor-General. Why, in the negotiation of the statute, was the period of 96 hours arrived at? What is the reason for such an arbitrary period? Why was it not a longer period—say, seven days—or a shorter one?

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)
Photo of Professor Ross Cranston

Professor Ross Cranston (Solicitor General, Law Officers' Department; Dudley North, Labour)

The simple answer is that the clause deals with unscheduled landing. In such cases, we do not want a situation in which possibilities are open for habeas corpus to be sought by the person involved. The purpose behind the incorporation of the 96-hour period in the clause was to transfer the person to the ICC as quickly as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Add an annotation (e.g. more info, blog post or wikipedia article)