| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) on securing this Adjournment debate. He is obviously doing what he should be doing on behalf of a constituent as a constituency Member of Parliament, and I understand his concerns for his constituent and his constituent's family. As I have already made clear to the hon. Gentleman, I take no issue with his setting out his reasons for believing that Mr. Giles Carlyle-Clarke should not be extradited to the US, but I should like to put the context of the case before the House this evening.
The context is that Mr. Carlyle-Clarke is wanted by the US authorities in the state of Alabama on serious charges concerning the importation and possible distribution of marijuana. The accusations involve the smuggling into the US in 1986 and 1987 of several thousands pounds—in weight—of the drug. He is also alleged to have co-ordinated delivery and distribution of a further quantity of drugs in Alabama in 1988 and to have received payments then worth more than $1 million for those services. In other words, he is wanted for very serious offences. Government Members know that the Conservative party takes the issue of cannabis and marijuana very seriously indeed.
Before proceeding any further, I should like to explain my specific difficulties with today's Adjournment debate, about which I wrote to Mr. Speaker. I copied the letter to the hon. Member for North Dorset and I hope that he will not mind me repeating some of the content for the House, which I believe is important.
The difficulty arises from the present circumstances of the case. The applicable current resolution about sub judice matters was passed on 15 November 2001. It sets out in clear terms that a criminal or civil case should not be referred to in any motion, debate or question. However, extradition cases are slightly different from all other cases heard by our courts, because they involve both the courts and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the decision-making process. An extradition case is not concluded until a final decision is made by my right hon. Friend, so in taking this decision, he is acting in a quasi-judicial role. He must weigh up the case for and against the making of an extradition order, taking into account any representations made to him.
In the case of Mr. Carlyle-Clarke, the matter is currently before the Secretary of State for consideration of fresh representations made on 15 February 2005 by his solicitors. So, while the matter is not strictly sub judice under the terms of the 2001 resolution, the case has not yet concluded. I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's decision and there remains the possibility of further legal proceedings in the form of an application for judicial review.
In summary, I inquired of Mr. Speaker whether, in those circumstances, this debate should go ahead. He felt that it should, and I have accepted his decision. However, I can say very little publicly about the case until my right hon. Friend has taken his decision, and
24 Mar 2005 : Column 1099
until that decision has been communicated to Mr Carlyle-Clarke. As I have assured the hon. Member for North Dorset, throughout the decision-making process, Home Office officials are maintaining appropriate contact with Mr. Carlyle-Clarke's legal representatives. I shall provide only a brief history of the case, about which the hon. Gentleman has already spoken, and restrict myself to a few general comments.
As I have explained, the alleged offences go back 17 years. An arrest warrant was first granted against Mr. Carlyle-Clarke by the district court in Alabama in 1992. There are some issues about the time taken before the US issued a request to us for his arrest that I cannot, for reasons that I have already explained, enter into here. Under the terms of the Extradition Act 1989, he was provisionally arrested for extradition on 9 January 1998 and remanded on bail. That date of arrest is now quite some time ago, but I can assure the House that the case did move on in the interval.
On 4 January 1999, Mr Carlyle-Clarke was committed at Bow Street to await the decision of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the then Home Secretary, 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 Extradition Act 1989, it then fell to the Home Secretary to decide whether to make an order for Mr. Carlyle-Clarke's return. Mr. Carlyle-Clarke was advised through his solicitors that he had the right to make representations to my right hon. Friend against that surrender by 2 December 1999. Under the procedures of the Extradition Act 1989, in making such a decision on surrender, the Secretary of State has to take into account not only statutory restrictions on return, but, in exercising his discretion, any other reason why it would be wrong, unjust or oppressive to order return. That can involve a very wide range of matters indeed. The deadline for representations was subsequently extended by the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, and they were received from Mr. Carlyle-Clarke's solicitors on both 13 December 1999 and 1 February 2000. They covered a wide range of matters.
Considerable 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, my predecessor as Minister with responsibility for extradition, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), signed an order for surrender on behalf of the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), on 3 July 2002. The period of two and half years may seem unduly long, but I am satisfied that the time taken was unprecedented neither under the terms of the extradition legislation that applied at the time, nor in the specific context of this matter.
The solicitors then requested to be allowed to make further representations. That was agreed, given all the circumstances of the case. Extensive further representations were received on a number of occasions, and further information from the US was also received before reconsideration of the case could be completed. In due course, on 27 November 2003, I confirmed the
24 Mar 2005 : Column 1100
earlier decision to surrender made by my predecessor. I do not believe that the fact that I dealt with the matter at that time precludes me from dealing with it in future, when new information would allow me to make a fresh decision.
In due course, the case came before the courts once again. On 26 November 2004, the High Court dismissed Mr. Carlyle-Clarke's application for judicial review. In giving judgment, Mr. Justice Pitchford considered all the arguments relating to delay in this case. Both Ministers and the courts had considered the case presented on behalf of Mr. Carlyle-Clarke in appropriate depth, and at that stage had been satisfied that no injustice or breach of human rights would occur, notwithstanding the contentions advanced as to passage of time. No statute of limitations applies, and the charge is a serious one. The overall time spent since the arrest involves time allowed for Mr. Carlyle-Clarke to make representations, as he is entitled to do, extensions granted by the Secretary of State to enable him to make those representations, and the time which has been needed for their due consideration.
In terms of general questions about the passage of time precluding extradition, it may help if I quote from the judgment of Lord Justice Simon Brown in the case of Woodcock v. Government of New Zealand, cited at 2004/1/WLR1979. He said:
"In my judgment, there can be no cut-off point beyond which extradition must inevitably be regarded as unjust or oppressive. It hardly needs me to point out that trial after 20 years or more is far from ideal. Sometimes, however, it may nevertheless be appropriate to extradite an accused for that purpose."
The case has again come before the Home Secretary, and it would not be appropriate for me to go into further details, but I will just add that I have noted the comments from the hon. Member for North Dorset about the position of Mr. Carlyle-Clarke's family. Extradition, by its nature—even more than other criminal proceedings—necessarily involves separation from loved ones. I recognise that, and such matters are taken into account
There is one other matter that I must mention. The hon. Member for North Dorset and the solicitors representing Mr. Carlyle-Clarke have both asked in recent weeks that specific papers in relation to the case should be disclosed to them. The hon. Gentleman repeated that request again this evening.
The request is being considered under the freedom of information procedures, but questions to do with international relations require further analysis before we respond, which we are trying to do as quickly as possible. There is nothing sinister about that: it is simply a question of respecting legal confidences between states. I can assure the hon. Member for North Dorset that no information has been withheld that is prejudicial to his constituent's case, but I hope he will forgive me if I cannot comment at this time. However, I have written to him, and I also faxed a letter to his office yesterday to confirm that we have set a deadline of 14 April for reply. I hope that his staff have alerted him to that fax, and I assure him that receipt was confirmed.
In passing, I note that the difficulties arising in this case, and the time that has elapsed while it has been processed through the Home Office and the courts, seem to me rather illustrative of why it was necessary to
24 Mar 2005 : Column 1101
review extradition procedures. The Extradition Act 2003 has greatly rationalised the process, and placed most decision-making on extradition before our independent courts, where it rightly should be.
I am well aware that certain current cases even under the new Act are controversial, and I do not intend to stray beyond the scope of this debate by discussing them. However, early indications are that the new procedures will, over the course of time, prove to be much quicker than those under the old Act. That will serve the interests of justice and the fight against
24 Mar 2005 : Column 1102
international crime. By no means least, it will serve the interests of defendants facing the uncertainties of extradition proceedings, as they will still have appropriate protections available to them.
In conclusion, I hope that what I have had to say will have been of some assistance to the hon. Member for North Dorset. It is our intention that the decision currently awaited in the case will be reached as quickly as is consistent with a proper and just consideration of the latest representations.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |