Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-105)
ANDY BURNHAM,
MP
22 NOVEMBER 2005
Q100 Mrs Dean: The European Convention
on Extradition says the state may refuse extradition for an offence
committed in whole or in part in its territory. Why is there not
a similar provision in the Treaty?
Andy Burnham: You are right to
say that is an article in the Treaty, but I think I am right in
saying it was not something which was incorporated in the 1989
legislation. Obviously that was under a previous government and
I do not know the reasons why they decided not to do that, but
that provision from the Treaty was not incorporated and therefore
has not been a premise on which our extradition system has been
based. I do not think we have operated or felt the need to incorporate
that particular provision, and the same is true of the 2003 Act.
Q101 Mrs Dean: Does it seem right
to you that we should have that included in our convention with
European countries and yet not have that provision in the treaty
with the US and other countries?
Andy Burnham: I am not wanting
to stray—and I probably have strayed—and get too deep
into this particular issue. Again, I would refer the Committee
back to the review, and the starting place for the review was
having arrangements for extradition which were sufficiently fleet
of foot and able to cope with crime and the nature of crime as
it has been changing over the last 20 years, possibly particularly
more markedly since electronic and internet avenues of communication
have seriously opened up. That was one of the key things behind
the review and the idea that crossing the border did not mean
you could effectively evade the full force of the law. That was
the thinking. As I have said, the premise was not there in our
previous legislation and I do not think the idea was to get into
a thing where people are trying to prove how much per cent and
what per cent and where, that is not the purpose of the legislation.
The purpose of the legislation is to enable the proper extradition
request to be made and for it to be validated for the UK courts
and then the individuals have the ability to challenge that request
through the UK legal system, and that is the regime which Parliament
has put in place.
Q102 Mrs Dean: Does not the wide
variety of jurisdictions in the US arising from differences in
the law in individual states mean in the case of alleged fraud
British businessmen might be extradited to a state they have never
visited?
Andy Burnham: Again, I do not
want to sound evasive, but I do not want to make direct comment
on cases which are currently being considered. I will say that
I think, again, people need to take a judgment on whether they
believe the relationship we have as laid out in the Extradition
Act is appropriate for the nature of our relationship with the
United States of America. I am entirely satisfied it is. We have
no closer relationship with any country in the world—okay,
some may say we have different relationships there. Is it appropriate
therefore to have a similar relationship, as we do for example
without getting the figures right, for 48 or 49 countries where
is not a special relationship, but because of the history of our
two countries there is more traffic between the two countries
because of the cultural similarities and the same language. In
conclusion, I would say that I do have faith in the American legal
system to respect the principles we have negotiated through the
bilateral Treaty and subsequently laid out in the 2003 Act. Nothing
gives me concern that, if extradited, people will not be able
to have a fair trial or will not have proper access to legal representation;
I am fully satisfied on those points.
Q103 Mrs Dean: Looking at the retrospectivity
of the law, under English law making anti-competitive agreements
has only been an imprisonable offence since 2002 but this was
an imprisonable offence in the USA before that date. Does that
not mean that British citizens could be imprisoned in the US for
something they could not be imprisoned for in the UK?
Andy Burnham: No, the dual criminality
test is an important part of our extradition system. Again I do
not want to be drawn into individual cases, if there is an individual
case you are thinking of there, but that is a cornerstone, a very
important part, of the system. As I mentioned to Mr Herbert before,
it is impossible to be precisely reciprocal and say, "That
equals that" because it is exactly the same. Offences differ
from country to country. What you have to get to is a position
where there is broad similarity and offences are broadly comparable
between the two countries. I think that is the way the extradition
system has to work; it has to work on the basis that you do not
have an exact mirror image in every country in the world of our
legal system. You are faced with different legal systems with
different offences and it has to work within those realities but,
within that, to do so as flexibly as possible.
Q104 Chairman: Earlier we were talking
about how you speeded up the process, are you sure that the lengthy
period of time it used to take was actually due to court delays
and not the amount of time it used to take the Home Office to
get the paperwork ready for the courts?
Andy Burnham: Unless, Chairman,
you know something I do not from your time in the Department—
Q105 Chairman: Maybe I did know what
was going on!
Andy Burnham: Having looked myself—and
you will know the Prime Minister made a commitment back in the
summer particularly with regard to terrorism cases to take out
some of what we would see as the inordinate length of time to
bring a case to conclusion—at some of the reasons for that,
I am satisfied myself much of it is due to court adjournments.
So rather than issues being dealt with on the day, an adjournment
is made and delay creeps into the case where really if court time
was used more effectively they would not be necessary. So court
adjournments and court delays are part of the problem. I am not
saying that is the fault of the courts, by the way, it might be
the two sides represented have brought further representations
on the day which have needed an adjournment. Equally, we have
to look at our resources within the Home Office and we have to
pursue cases as expeditiously as we can.
Chairman: Minister, thank you very much
indeed. I hope you have found it a reasonably enjoyable experience.
We are very grateful for your assistance. Thank you very much
indeed.
| 
