Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-35)
SENIOR DISTRICT
JUDGE TIM
WORKMAN
22 NOVEMBER 2005
Q20 Mr Winnick: In other words, one
would expect, to put it in layman's language, that the United
States in submitting its case would act in good faith in the manner
in which it presented its case to you.
Judge Workman: That, I think,
applies throughout extradition generally, that it is a matter
of good faith.
Q21 Mr Malik: You would be familiar,
I assume, with the memorandum of understanding that the Government
is trying to develop with certain countries where they might wish
to send foreign nationals back. Would you give the same weight
to that memorandum of understanding as compared to the one that
we just discussed between the USA and the UK?
Judge Workman: Do I understand
your question to be that of those countries we extradite to, do
we take a different view of some than others?
Q22 Mr Malik: The Government is currently
trying to develop memoranda of understanding with states which,
as you said, perhaps have not got 100% human rights records. The
argument is that they can then send foreign nationals back. This
might be a separate area because we are dealing with extradition
here and this is deportation.
Judge Workman: I think we are
into immigration and deportation, which is not really a matter
for me. The countries which I suspect you have in mind, some of
them we do not have extradition treaties with so there is no power
to extradite.
Q23 Nick Harvey: Has the Government's
decision to list the USA under the Act as a part 2 country made
a significant difference to your work?
Judge Workman: I do not think
it has. We were trying to look at the statistics this morning,
in fact, and although the workload in terms of extraditions throughout
the world has increased for Bow Street quite considerably, in
fact the figures in relation to the United States of America are
rather less. We had 33 cases last year from the United States
and so far this year we have had 15, with two months to go, so
it has probably dropped in terms of numbers, but because the numbers
are so small the variation or fluctuation might be quite considerable.
It could be that next year we get 40.
Q24 Nick Harvey: Are there any particular
features of extradition requests from the USA that would not be
found typically in requests from other part 2 countries?
Judge Workman: We obviously apply
the 2003 Act across the board so it is the same principle throughout.
I suppose the slight difference is the matter that Mr Streeter
referred to, that in the United States we are dealing also with
individual states, some of which carry the death penalty and some
do not. So there are some issues that are slightly different when
dealing with a United States rather than an individual country.
Q25 Nick Harvey: Is the pattern of
requests from America in terms of the crimes concerned similar
to that in other part 2 countries?
Judge Workman: We looked at that
also this morning and, frankly, we cannot see any discernible
pattern. I do not think it has changed; if one looked back perhaps
five years one could say that it has changed in as much as there
are now more terrorist offences and more conspiracy to defraud,
but the rest of the nature of the work is fairly consistent. There
are some places, such as some of the Mid European States where
what we would regard as rather more minor offences are extradited,
but I suspect that to them they are important matters. Whereas
we would not expect to hear from America seeking the return of
somebody for theft of £300, we would perhaps from Latvia.
Q26 Chairman: Can you help us a little
bit further on this question of the extra-territoriality of the
US as some people have described it? It has been put to us that
you could be carrying out an internet fraud in the UK and Europe,
but actually if so much as one e-mail passed through an internet
service provider in the States somewhere, US law would be sufficient
to make you liable to prosecution under US law. In looking at
the cases that have come before you from different countries,
do you have any sense that in some sense the reach of the US justice
system to try and catch people whose crimes may only in small
part have taken place in the US is more ambitious and greater
than other part 2 countries?
Judge Workman: I do not think
I can answer that in detail without giving it some proper research.
I am sorry not to be able to give you a clear answer on it, but
I do not think it is. I suspect that we may be getting this impression
particularly because of conspiracies to defraud, which probably
emanate more from the United States than they do from Latvia.
Chairman: Thank you. Colin Burgon.
Q27 Colin Burgon: Picking up from
your answers to Mr Winnick, you were talking about the position
of Guantanamo Bay. Have any extradition requests from the USA
been refused to your knowledge?
Judge Workman: Yes, they have
been, I have refused one myself. There was one refusal last year.
Q28 Colin Burgon: Could you tell
us what the grounds for that were?
Judge Workman: The matter that
I refused—it is public knowledge anyway—was a case
called Raissi, who was a defendant the United States required
in relation to issues surrounding the bombing of the Twin Towers.
In essence, the offences for which he appeared before me were
nothing to do with that other than that he had failed to provide
information which led to an allegation that he had misled the
authorities to obtain a pilot's licence. In fact, having heard
the evidence, I established that was not the case, but he was
required by the United States at that time in relation to terrorist
offences.
Q29 Colin Burgon: The Home Office
argue that adding the USA to the list of part 2 countries has
shortened the overall time taken to implement extradition requests,
and this has reduced average time from arrest to surrender from
something like 30 months to seven months. In your opinion, how
much of this 23 month reduction is simply the result of quicker,
simpler and more effective procedures in the courts?
Judge Workman: The reduction in
the opportunities to appeal has actually reduced the length of
time that a case can take right the way through the courts, but
in terms of the actual timescale within Bow Street Court, there
has really been very little change in the timescale. I have to
say that we are doing our best to expedite all extraditions at
the moment, so that I hope would account for some of this reduction,
but that is purely an administrative aspect. I suspect that the
greatest benefit is in the reduction of time that the matter takes
with the Secretary of State.
Q30 Mr Streeter: A very quick question,
Chairman, if I may. I would not like to be in Guantanamo Bay,
but then I would not like to be in any US prison. What is it in
particular about Guantanamo Bay that causes you to place it in
a special category? Obviously it is a robust regime, as are many
US prisons, but the legal representation in many US states is
patchy for people inside prison. What particular aspect of Guantanamo
Bay disturbs you, and are you sure that you are not simply being
swept along on some kind of political tide?
Judge Workman: There is always
that risk, you have to be careful.
Q31 Mr Streeter: You do not strike
me as the sort of person who would be swept along, but I have
to ask.
Judge Workman: There is always
that risk. The evidence that I had in relation to a particular
case came from an American lawyer who gave evidence about it and
told me the particular difficulties that prisoners could experience
if they were made subject to Military Order No. 1 which then means
that they can be held incommunicado, they do not have a choice
of lawyer—they could have a lawyer but not a choice—and
they could be detained for a considerable length of time, and
indeed, there was a suggestion that they might be removed from
Guantanamo Bay. These are matters that have to be dealt with on
a case by case basis on the evidence that is presented to me,
and I hope that one does not get swept along on the political
tide too often.
Q32 Nick Herbert: Am I right that
the case of Raissi that you referred to as an extradition
you refused to grant was before the current Treaty when a prima
facie case would have had to have been made?
Judge Workman: Yes
Q33 Nick Herbert: Is it not the point
that under the new Treaty a prima facie case would not have to
be made and you would not have been able to refuse that extradition?
Judge Workman: There were two
charges, one of which I could have refused because that was purely
on the basis of legal argument. The second charge, which related
to an alleged deception in failing to notify a knee injury to
the doctor, I think you are right, that that would have been difficult
to have done anything other than to extradite.
Q34 Chairman: Mr Herbert has really
asked my question. There is in that sense a significant lowering
of the protection the courts are able to offer here under the
new arrangements compared to what used to exist under the previous
Treaty. Maybe I should not use the word significant.
Judge Workman: I suppose where
any court is invited to consider evidence and make a decision
on the evidence, the defence position is stronger than when the
court is not obliged to. I think that is as far as I ought to
go.
Q35 Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed, that has been very helpful.
Judge Workman: Thank you very
much for inviting me.
| 
