GS(UK-US) 21: Letter to the Chairman of the Committee from Mr Ivan Lewis MP,

Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

 

 

I am writing in response to further questions raised on the FCO's memorandum to the Committee on UK-US relations.

 

Sir Menzies Campbell raised a question about the Extradition Treaty in place between the UK and the US and whether it would be possible in future simply to put a provision in any such legislation to say that it should not come into effect until such time as the contracting party to the treaty has ratified the treaty and brought it into force?

 

I have taken legal advice from the Home Office on this question. Sir Menzies Campbell was correct in suggesting that the introduction of the Extradition Act 2003 did amend domestic law in a manner which complied with the requirements of the UK-US Extradition Treaty before instruments of ratification had been exchanged. Although it is government policy not to designate a country until instruments of ratification for the respective extradition treaties have been exchanged, the decision with respect to the United States was taken exceptionally for two important reasons.

 

Firstly, the only significant amendment to UK domestic law needed to meet the requirements of the UK-US Treaty, was to relieve the United States of the need to establish a prima facie case when making an extradition request to the UK. Some have suggested that this created an imbalance in the UK's extradition relations with the US. This is categorically not the case. The amendment simply redressed an earlier imbalance in our extradition relations with the US, which required the US to provide more evidence than they asked of us. The US was required to demonstrate a prima facie evidential case in support of extradition requests made to the UK, whereas the UK had to demonstrate 'probable cause' (a lower standard).

 

Secondly, it is important to note although there was a delay in the US ratifying the Treaty, which we acknowledge, the introduction of the Extradition Act 2003 also saw the removal of the requirement on Australia, New Zealand and Canada to establish a prima facie case. Indeed, that requirement had already been disapplied since the early 1990s in relation to the UK's many partners under the European Convention on Extradition.

 

This reflected the fact that these countries and the United States are established extradition partners. The Government is absolutely clear that this was the right approach and has led to more effective and streamlined extradition arrangements with these countries.

 

As to the suggestion that the UK's extradition relations with the US are unbalanced, as the Government has made clear on a number of occasions, the information that must now be provided in order for a US extradition request to proceed in the UK is in practice the same as for a UK request to proceed in the US. It is important to stress that in both cases the standard of information which must now be provided for an extradition request to be accepted is the same as must be provided to a criminal court in that country in order for a domestic arrest warrant to be issued.

 

In the evidence session, Mr Hamilton asked about the US network and in particular a "strategic review". His question arose in the context of the FCO's briefing note which was kindly provided to the Committee in advance of its visit to the US in October. The Committee has asked whether it would be possible to clarify what this "strategic look" will involve and any relevant timescales?

 

In September 2009, the Board of Management at our Embassy in Washington agreed a number of measures to reduce expenditure, in order to meet exchange rate pressures on our local budget. These were set out in the FCO's memorandum to the FAC. No decisions have been taken about next year's budget or any future review.

 

 

29 January 2010