I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification; I am sorry that I did not catch it properly at the start. Let me come back to that in a moment.

I can confirm that the hon. Gentleman's constituent, Mr. Carlyle-Clarke, was extradited to the United States in July 2006 to face charges concerning the importation and possible distribution of marijuana. The charges involved the smuggling into the United States, in the years 1986 and 1987, of several thousand pounds in weight of marijuana. He was alleged to have co-ordinated the delivery and distribution of a further quantity of drugs in Alabama in 1988. I think that the hon. Gentleman is in agreement on those facts.

I understand that following the extradition in 2006, the case was heard in 2007. Mr. Carlyle-Clarke was legally represented at the proceedings in the United States and, as has been described, pleaded guilty to the charge put to him, and was sentenced in February 2007 to three years' imprisonment in the US. As was his right, he applied to be transferred to the UK to serve the remainder of the sentence in a prison here. He was transferred in July 2008, and released from UK custody in October 2008. I understand that he was on licence until May 2009; he is now no longer subject to any licence conditions.

The extradition proceedings, which are what the hon. Gentleman is concerned about, are of course long concluded, but I may be of assistance in giving the House a summary of those proceedings. Mr. Carlyle-Clarke fought extradition for several years, and the case was considered at all stages of the process. An arrest warrant was first granted against him by the district court in Alabama in 1992. Under the terms of the Extradition Act 1989, which was in operation at that time, he was provisionally arrested for extradition on 9 January 1998, and remanded on bail. On 4 January 1999, he was committed at Bow street magistrates court to await the Secretary of State's decision as to his return, a prima facie case having been found against him based on documentary evidence and witness statements. He then applied for habeas corpus, but withdrew from that line of legal challenge on 10 November 1999.

Under the 1989 Act, the case then fell to the then Secretary of State, to decide whether to make an order for Mr Carlyle-Clarke's return. Mr. Carlyle-Clarke was advised that he had the right to make representations by 2 December 1999 against that surrender. Under the procedures of the 1989 Act, in making such a decision as to surrender, the Secretary of State had to take into account not only statutory restrictions on return but, in the exercise of his discretion, any other reason why it would be wrong, unjust or oppressive to order return. The deadline for representations was subsequently extended, and they were received from Mr Carlyle-Clarke's solicitors on 13 December 1999 and on 1 February 2000. They covered a wide range of matters. Inquiries were then made of the US authorities, followed by a very careful consideration of the representations, including a review of the case law cited in them.

In due course, an order for Mr Carlyle-Clarke's surrender was signed on 3 July 2002. The solicitors then requested that they be allowed to make further representations, and this was agreed, taking into account all the circumstances. Extensive further representations were received on a number of occasions, and further information was received from the United States before reconsideration of the case could be then completed. On 27 November 2003, the decision to surrender Mr Carlyle-Clarke was confirmed. Subsequently, the case came before the courts once more, and on 26 November 2004, the High Court dismissed Mr Carlyle-Clarke's application for judicial review, rejecting all the arguments that had been advanced on his behalf. Again, fresh representations were placed before the Secretary of State for consideration, but the earlier decisions were upheld on 28 October 2005.

Another judicial review application was dismissed on 16 June 2006, with the Court ruling that the claimant had got nowhere near establishing a case of a request made in bad faith, and that a challenge on the basis of the passage of time since the commission of the offences did not avail him. An application to the European Court of Human Rights was turned down on 29 June 2006, and hence the extradition took place the following month. I believe that the issues of fairness and proportionality were dealt with in the High Court case on 16 June, and I have explained its ruling.

This evening, the hon. Gentleman has explained new evidence about the case that he reports has since come to light. As he knows, the UK Government cannot interfere in judicial proceedings in another jurisdiction—and to be fair, I should add that he has not suggested that we should. It is not appropriate for me to comment even if, as in this case, the proceedings have been concluded. However, if he considers it appropriate, he could suggest that his constituent bring any new evidence relating to his involvement in the case to the attention of the relevant authorities in the USA, and seek advice from those who represented him.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that I cannot respond this evening to the new evidence that he has brought before the House. He has asked for an apology, but I suggest that if he wishes to pursue the matter he could write to me, perhaps enclosing a copy of the previous debate, of which I am now aware. We have the case file, of course. As I have said, it is impossible for me or the Government to interfere in the judicial proceedings of another country, and I know that he respects that fact.

As for the implication that the UK Government were either misled or complicit in misleading, either intentionally or unintentionally, I would have to come back to the hon. Gentleman on that. I would express to him the view that it is very difficult for me to comment on specific cases—but that is not said with any intention of blocking any request for information. He has done exactly the right thing on behalf of his constituent in bringing the case to the Chamber of this House, so that his constituent can have his case put through his MP. I look forward to his correspondence if he feels that that is the right way forward. I thank him, and I think that it is best if I leave it at that for this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned .