Information required to be included
in a European Arrest Warrant
64. Clause 10(2) provides that, where a Part 1 warrant
is issued in respect of a person, a UK judge must decide whether
the offence specified in the warrant is an extradition offence.
An "extradition offence" is defined in relation to Part
1 of the Bill in Clauses 63 and 64.
65. Article 8 of the framework decision specifies
the information that must be contained in a European Arrest Warrant,
set out in accordance with the model warrant annexed to the framework
decision (see Appendix C). A warrant must include the following
facts, amongst other things:
- the nature and legal classification of the offence,
particularly in respect of the 32 offences set out in article
2.2 of the framework decision
- a description of the circumstances in which the
offence was committed, including the time, place and degree of
participation in the offence by the requested person.
66. At present, the Bill is silent as to what information
must be contained in a European Arrest Warrant before a judge
can determine whether the offence for which extradition is sought
constitutes an "extradition offence", in terms of Clauses
63 and 64. Although article 8 of the framework decision does require
certain information to be specified in the warrant, the framework
decision does not set out any requirements or guidelines in relation
to the degree of detail required.
67. JUSTICE considers that Part 1 of the Bill should
be amended to specify what information must be provided on the
face of a Part 1 warrant, including a European Arrest Warrant,
in order for a judge to decide whether the offence specified constitutes
an extradition offence. In particular, JUSTICE is concerned that
a Part 1 warrant should provide sufficient details of the legal
basis of the offence and the conduct alleged for the judge to
be able to establish a reasoned connection between the alleged
offence and the alleged conduct. JUSTICE argues that, if the Bill
is not amended to specify the required degree of information,
it is difficult to see how a judge can ensure that his or her
decision under Clause 10 and any subsequent detention do not amount
to a breach of article 5 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the ECHR). Article 5
protects an individual's right not to be deprived of his or her
liberty in an arbitrary fashion.
68. We agree with JUSTICE that it is important that
the required degree of information should be specified on the
face of the Bill rather than being left to the individual judge
to determine in each case. We therefore recommend that Part
1 of the Bill be amended to specify the information that must
be provided on the face of a Part 1 warrant, including a European
Arrest Warrant.
Specialty
69. The rule of specialty is essentially the principle
that, if a state agrees to extradite a suspect, the state which
requested the extradition must not take proceedings against the
suspect other than those for the offence for which he or she was
extradited. For a requesting state to proceed against an extradited
person in respect of some other offence, the UK must expressly
consent to the proceedings.
70. However, Clause 53 of the Bill provides for the
possibility of the UK giving a blanket waiver of the specialty
rule. Article 27.1 of the framework decision provides that a state
may give notification that it may be presumed to have consented
to another EU member state taking proceedings against a suspect
other than those for which the executing state surrendered the
suspect, where the other member state has also given such notification
under article 27.1. Clause 53 provides that where both the requesting
state and the UK have given such notification under article 27.1,
then the requesting state may proceed as if the appropriate UK
judge had given consent to the extradited person being dealt with
for the other offence (unless the judge makes a statement to the
contrary in any given case). This would effectively abolish the
rule of specialty as between the UK and any other category 1 territory
that has also given notification under article 27.1.
71. The Home Office told us that the Government intends
to give such notification under article 27.1. The Home Office
believes that, when the issue of specialty arises, the UK's position
"should be guided by the principles of mutual trust and mutual
recognition" and that giving notification under article 27.1
is consistent with this.
72. We find it difficult to reconcile what the Home
Office has told us with a statement made by the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, Bob Ainsworth MP,
at the time of the Bill's publication. The Minister stated that
"the Bill also safeguards the rights of fugitives...we're
retaining the principle that fugitives will only stand trial for
the crime they were extradited for [our italics]".[31]
This would appear to be a reference to the specialty rule. It
is true that there is nothing in the Bill that would, in itself,
limit the application of the specialty rule. However, if the Government
does give notification under article 27.1, as the Home Office
has told us it intends to, and as Clause 53 provides for, then
the principle "that fugitives will only stand trial for the
crime they were extradited for" will effectively be abolished
as between the UK and any EU member state that has also given
notification under article 27.1. In the context of the information
we have received from the Home Office, we consider that the Minister's
statement can be described at best as incomplete and at worst
as misleading.
73. We have serious reservations about the Government's
intention to give notification under article 27.1. The Home Office
points out that, as was acknowledged in our oral evidence session
with JUSTICE and Liberty, the issue of specialty does not often
arise. However, the Home Office failed to respond to the concern
raised by JUSTICE that, although such cases are at the moment
infrequent, agreeing to what is effectively a carte blanche
to proceed against an extradited person in relation to any offence
whatsoever may well lead to a significant rise in the number of
such cases.
74. We agree with JUSTICE and Liberty that specialty
is a key safeguard against abuse of the extradition process, and
that for the UK to give notification under article 27.1 would
infringe this safeguard. We note that the Law Society also opposes
any exceptions to the specialty rule. We consider that any notification
under article 27.1 would amount to a blanket waiver of the specialty
rule. Instead of such a blanket waiver, we would prefer that such
waivers should be given on a case-by-case basis and with the consent
of the person to be extradited.
75. We strongly urge the Government to re-consider
its intention to give notification under article 27.1. We recommend
that Clause 53 be deleted from the Bill.
24 
