Q
120Mr.
Coaker: We have talked a lot in this discussion about
extradition requests being made to us and some of the issues around
that for us. Could either Commander Gibson, Mr. Evans or any
of the other officers comment on us doing the requesting? How useful do
you think some of the provisions in the Bill will be to help in that
process? Are there issues that you would like to highlight
there? Murray
Duffin: Are we talking about cases where the
investigating arm is in the
UK?
Murray
Duffin: For all of us it simplifies the proceedings.
It is far easier with an EAW for us to ask for somebody in a European
jurisdiction who is wanted for an offence in the UK to be returned to
us. Our relationship with our European colleagues, all organised
through SOCA, is very good. My unit physically collects all of the high
risk ones who are wanted within the MPS. So, for example, we will
physically go out and collect anyone who is wanted for a murder in
London and bring them back. Our officers have specialist training on
those collection procedures. It just makes life easier. There is
nothing in the Bill that will really change the way we do things for
people coming in. If we do not know whether they are in a specific
European country they will all be on the Schengen information system.
That will mean that more people who are wanted in the UK will be
brought to notice within other European countries and therefore more
will be returned to us to face justice here. So it is a good
thing. Paul
Evans: This is a very important point. There is a
quid pro quo here about European co-operation which goes something like
this. It will, I hope, come as no
surprise to the Committee to know that one of the things that SOCA has
been engaged in since its start-up has been the absolute rigorous
pursuit of fugitives from UK justice. That is those individuals who
fled to foreign jurisdictions, often in Europe. We all know of the
Costa del Crime, but there are other places in Europe, particularly
with the expansion, where British criminals can find a home. We want
them back to face justice. Our lives have been significantly simplified
since 2003 by the ability to operate that through this
system.
It is no
secret that over 28 very serious, in some cases violent and dangerous
criminals, have been returned in the last year to the UK jurisdiction
from Spain. That was part of operation Captura, run jointly with the
police service, ACPO and Crimestoppers. It is a significant
contribution to the administration of UK justice and, importantly, to
notions of public safety and public perceptions of safety that we are
able to use this to reach out to jurisdictions in a way that hitherto
would have been very complicated. The price we have to pay in running
the system for requests inward is more than repaid by the assistance
that we can mandate in 27 countries—one third of the
world’s landmass—in relation to our own serious criminal
problem. That is a significant consideration. These provisions will
help us make more efficient what is already quite
efficient.
Q
121James
Brokenshire: I have some quick questions to round off
with. When I was questioning earlier, there was the implication that
the costs of compliance with the enhanced Schengen arrangements, the
requests being received and the officer-time required to follow through
on requests from other European jurisdictions were growing and growing.
Can you indicate the cost in manpower of complying with the system as
it is now, when we have this exponential
growth? Allan
Gibson: I can give a very broad indication. Our
police authority had to make provision for doubling the size of our
extradition unit to deal with this. That gave us some respite in
managing the upward trajectory in the number of arrests but only a
respite, which is why we had to go back to our colleagues in ACPO and
say that we need a permanent solution. There will be implications over
time for each force.
I notice the
Bill does not have a cost on policing, though it has a cost on other
parts of the criminal justice system. There most definitely will be a
substantial cost to policing as this takes off, because the cost in
time and prisoner escort of moving people around the country is
substantial. When you are going to 1,700 from a base of 200 over three
or four years that must be reflected in
costs.
Q
122James
Brokenshire: Obviously, that is a cost that will have to
be shared by police forces around the country in respect of requests
for people located in their jurisdiction—in officer time to
track them down and make arrests and so
on. Allan
Gibson: Precisely. I notice that other parts have got
some provision for that but it is not reflected on
policing.
Q
123James
Brokenshire: Do you want to add anything, Mr.
Creedon, on the impact of this on policing more generally?
Mick
Creedon: When the Met first wrote—I cannot
remember when but it was a good 12 months ago—outlining some of
the issues around this, forces and regions began to ask what it would
mean for them. There will be a significant impact, there is no getting
away from it. This is not a fight between ACPO and the Met because we
understand the implications for them. The only issue for policing is
that to a certain extent there was a small portion of the Met that was
top-sliced and funded to provide this for 42 other forces. We
understand exactly where they are coming from in terms of the growth
and the reality. The issue about financing—albeit it is a tiny
part of the entire police financing—is not straightforward. The
other aspect for most forces will be about capacity capability against
need and we will need to look perhaps at some collaborative activity
around how to do this. In my own region in the east midlands it is
something we do as a cluster of forces.
Q
124James
Brokenshire: There has been quite a lot of debate about
the impact of new communities in certain police force
areas—language and associated issues. Presumably, on the basis
of what we have heard of the proportion of these European arrest
warrants that are of foreign nationals sought overseas, you can see
that if you have new communities in certain parts of the country this
could have a disproportionate affect in those police force areas
compared with
others. Murray
Duffin: If you look at the numbers, over
50 per cent. of all extradition activity takes place in
London and over 70 per cent. in the south-east because that is where
people in the main have come to. When you talk about the effect on
individual police force areas, there is no doubt that the number of
Polish requests slants the issue. You would normally expect more
arrests and activity to take place in the large conurbations, but quite
often in places such as Cambridgeshire and Suffolk, where there are
large migrant agricultural communities made up of east Europeans, we
have a large number of requests and arrests precisely because those
communities have grown up, as you
say.
Q
125James
Brokenshire: You have emphasised Poland on a number of
occasions, can you give an impression of the
proportion? Murray
Duffin:
43.
Q
126James
Brokenshire: 43 per cent. Clearly etched on your mind. One
final point on extradition generally.
A point has been made about the undertakings given to a third-party
state that you seek extradition from one country to be prosecuted in
this country then to be returned to that original country to serve the
sentence. In what proportion of cases are these specific requests
attached, in terms of driving the point that has been made in this
Bill? Are there situations where those requests are made of UK
nationals, because an issue has been flagged that a request could be
made of a UK national in a non-EU jurisdiction—they come and
serve their sentence here and are then returned to that non-EU country.
Could you help the Committee by giving a flavour of some of the
examples that have perhaps driven this amendment to be sought in the
Bill, if it has been sought from law enforcement at
all? Murray
Duffin: It has not been sought by law enforcement. It
is more for the judicial authorities. Some countries have in their
constitution that their nationals cannot be surrendered for trial in
another jurisdiction. The way round this, for want of a better
argument, is that the person does return, does come to wherever they
are being requested, and the quid pro quo is that they serve their
sentence back in their host country. That is really what has driven
this. It is not a policing
issue.
Q
127Mr.
Coaker: France is an
example. Murray
Duffin: France is an
example. Allan
Gibson: The Metropolitan police is retaining
responsibility for extradition outside of the EU. That is definitely
something where expertise matters. It is not a standardised system. It
can vary from one jurisdiction to another. Countries of part 2 and part
3 are where there are one-to-one extradition treaties, mutual legal
assistance treaties or there is a one-off arrangement negotiated
through our Government with a foreign Government. We retain
responsibility for those.
The
Chairman: If there are no further questions for these
witnesses, it brings us to the end of our business for the day. The
Committee will sit again at 9am on Thursday. I would like to thank all
the witnesses for both their written statements and their presentations
to us today. I have learned a lot, as I am sure my colleagues have. I
thank you for your
attendance. Ordered,
That further consideration be now
adjourned.—(Mr. Ian
Austin.) 6.37
pm Adjourned
till Thursday 29 January at Nine
o’clock.
| 
