Extradition Bill

COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS

REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO A LORDS AMENDMENT AND COMMONS

AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN OTHER

LORDS AMENDMENTS

[The page and line references are to HL Bill 50(Rev) as first printed for the Lords.]

Clause 2

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 3

Page 2, line 12, leave out from “including” to end of line 14 and insert “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,

the nature and legal classification of the offence and the applicable statutory

provision;”

The Commons agree to this amendment with the following amendments—

3A

Line 1, leave out “a description of the circumstances in which the offence was com­

mitted, including’ and insert ‘the conduct alleged to constitute the offence,”

3B

Line 3, after “time” insert “and”

3C

Line 3, leave out “and degree of participation in the offence by the requested per­

son’ and insert ‘at which he is alleged to have committed the offence and”

3D

Line 4, leave out “the nature and legal classification of the offence and the applica­

ble statutory provision’ and insert ‘any provision of the law of the category 1 ter­

ritory under which the conduct is alleged to constitute an offence”

Clause 20

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 26

Page 10, line 26, at end insert—

(  2  )

“(8)   

For the purposes of subsection (5), the judge should not regard as a retrial

or (on appeal) a review amounting to a retrial, any proceedings that do not

in particular include provision for—

(a)   

the suspect to be present at the retrial;

(b)   

the suspect to have like rights to hear and examine witnesses as he

would have done at the original trial;

(c)   

the suspect to have the same right to publicly funded legal services

as any suspect or defendant.”

The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendment in

lieu—

26A

Page 10, line 26, at end insert—

“(8 )   

The judge must not decide the question in subsection (5) in the affirmative

unless, in any proceedings that it is alleged would constitute a retrial or a

review amounting to a retrial, the person would have these rights—

(a)   

the right to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of

his own choosing or, if he had not sufficient means to pay for legal

assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so

required;

(b)   

the right to examine or have examined witnesses against him and

to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf

under the same conditions as witnesses against him.”

After Clause 21

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 27

Insert the following new Clause—

“Minimum procedural rights

(1)   

In reaching a decision under section 21(1) the judge shall have particular

regard to the person’s Convention rights under Article 6.3 of the European

Convention on Human Rights.

(2)   

For the purposes of subsection (1), the judge may accept a written

assurance from an appropriate authority in the category 1 territory in

which the warrant was issued that the person’s Convention rights under

Article 6.3 will be observed.

(3)   

Where a written assurance has been given under subsection (2), the

Secretary of State shall make arrangements to monitor the subsequent

conduct of the proceedings against the person in the territory to which he

has been extradited.

(4)   

If the Secretary of State believes as a result of monitoring under subsection

(3) that a person’s Convention rights under Article 6.3 have not been

observed, he may draw that conclusion to the attention of a judge acting

(  3  )

under section 21 in relation to any proceedings for the extradition of any

other person to the same category 1 territory.”

The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following Reason—

27A

Because it would not be appropriate to provide for the giving of an assurance, or

for monitoring, of the kind described in the Lords Amendment.

Clause 84

LORDS AMENDMENT NO. 111

Page 45, line 7, at end insert—

“(8)   

For the purposes of subsection (5), the judge should not regard as a retrial

or (on appeal) a review amounting to a retrial, any proceedings that do not

in particular include provision for—

(a)   

the suspect to be present at the retrial;

(b)   

the suspect to have like rights to hear and examine witnesses as he

would have done at the original trial;

(c)   

the suspect to have the same right to publicly funded legal services

as any suspect or defendant.”

The Commons disagree to this amendment but propose the following amendment in

lieu—

111A

Page 45, line 7, at end insert—

“(8 )   

The judge must not decide the question in subsection (5) in the affirmative

unless, in any proceedings that it is alleged would constitute a retrial or a

review amounting to a retrial, the person would have these rights—

(a)   

the right to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of

his own choosing or, if he had not sufficient means to pay for legal

assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so

required;

(b)   

the right to examine or have examined witnesses against him and

to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf

under the same conditions as witnesses against him.”

(  4  )