US-UK Extradition Treaty

Part of Opposition Day — [16th Allotted Day] – in the House of Commons at 4:01 pm on 15 July 2009.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson Minister of State (Home Office) (Crime and Policing) 4:01, 15 July 2009

If my right hon. Friend had attended the debate, he would have heard the Home Secretary say strongly that we believe that we are trying, as far as we can with two different judicial systems, to ensure that we have parity.

UK prosecutors are required to demonstrate "probable cause" in the UK courts. This is a requirement of the US Bill of Rights. In American law, this is described as

"facts and circumstances which are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime".

Similarly, US prosecutors are required to demonstrate "reasonable suspicion" in the UK courts. As the Home Secretary said earlier, this has been defined in UK case law in the following terms: that the

"circumstances of the case should be such that a reasonable man acting without passion or prejudice would fairly have suspected the person of having committed the offence".

The similarity is there.

We have a number of key legislative safeguards in place. Identity, for example, is one. Extradition is barred if the judge is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the person before him is the person sought. Dual criminality provides another safeguard, as extradition is barred if dual criminality is not established. Evidence must be there, as I have outlined. Double jeopardy is another, as extradition is barred if the person has already been convicted or acquitted elsewhere. Other criteria include injustice due to ill health or passage of time; injustice due to domestic proceedings; specific legislation on the death penalty; and specific legislation on onward extradition from another state to another country. All those are real and proper safeguards.

I accept that Mr. Burrowes made a passionate case on behalf of his constituent, Gary McKinnon. The hon. Gentleman will know that I cannot comment in detail because judicial reviews are before the House, but it is important to put it on the record that so far, the US request has faced a challenge by magistrates courts, the High Court, the House of Lords, and now the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Even now there are separate judicial reviews being undertaken. How much more does the process require? There are safeguards in place and opportunities to consider those matters. It is important to stress that the Home Office has not ignored Mr. McKinnon's medical condition. That has been considered in detail today by my noble Friend Lord West, who is dealing with these matters.