Examination of Witness (Questions 1-27)
Q1 Chair: I call
the Committee to order. This is a one-off session on the extradition
issues, which will also cover the European Arrest Warrant. I refer
all those present to the Register of Members' Interests where
the interests of all Members are noted. Are there any specific
interests that Members of the Committee wish to declare before
we start?
Our first witness today is David Blunkett. Mr Blunkett,
thank you very much for coming to give evidence to this Committee.
David Blunkett:
Good morning, Chairman. Thank you.
Q2 Chair: We have called
you to give evidence today because you were the Home Secretary
at the time the extradition treatyspecifically the treaty
with Americawas signed. Of course, if there are other issues
to do with other treaties or the general issue of extradition,
I'm sure Members will want to ask you questions on that as well.
If I could start with this question: on reflection,
do you think that in signing the treaty we gave away, on balance,
more to the Americans than was anticipated at the time?
David Blunkett:
We're all working from hindsight, including virtually allnot
entirely, but virtually allparliamentarians in both Houses
at the time, and I'm subject to reflections in hindsight like
everyone else. Firstly, I think it was a mistake not to indicate
that we would not ratify ourselves until we were clear that Congress
was going to do so and that left a period of limbo; secondly,
that we'd more readily explored the world of cyberin other
words criminal activity which goes beyond the normal geographic
boundaries; and, thirdly, given the change in technology, whether
there could have been greater understanding seven years ago about
the potential use of that technology to deal specifically with
the US circumstance, where they have a particular view of anything
that happens in the rest of the world that affects them.
Q3 Chair: But
with the knowledge that you have at the moment, if you were re-signing
this treaty, would you think again about the balance that was
struck between what we are expected to do in sending one of our
citizens to America and what the Americans are expected to do
as far as they are concerned?
David Blunkett:
If I were doing it now, I would reflect on the experience, the
debate, the discussion over the last seven years. I have to say
that we were trying to achieve a balanceparticularly given
that the treaty had run outin terms of ensuring that UK
citizens, or anyone that we chose to transfer back to US jurisdiction,
were not subject to the death penalty and I do think we need to
bear that in mind. It bore very heavily with me and I think it's
very important. So the US were giving up something that, whether
we like it or not, they consider to be a part of their judicial
armoury and something that many states take as being a given,
regrettably. So we had to protect interests of people in the most
obvious way possible, namely their life.
I think it's very important to understand this.
The seven years have taught me one thing, which is that the theory
of what we signed may have been improved but the practice has
been very different. I can't think of anything in the seven years,
including the very high-profile cases that have been dealt withlike
the NatWest Three or current oneswhere the Extradition
Act and treaty have taken away someone's rights in a way that
wasn't the case before.
Q4 Chair: But,
accepting all that, you welcome the Government's review of extradition,
bearing in mind the last seven years?
David Blunkett:
Yes, I do.
Q5 Chair: And
do you think that is an opportunity maybe to get the balance right?
David Blunkett:
I think it's an opportunity, not just with the American treaty
and Act but also with the European Arrest Warrant, where we thought
we'd got de minimis rules in terms of what would be subject to
the EAW. We believed that people would act rationally in terms
of the time that had elapsed before cases were pursued. In both
those cases I think there is room for improvement with the EAW,
just as there would be in reviewing the treaty with the US. And,
of course, the odd circumstance with the European Arrest Warrant
is that it doesn't have to be applied to the country of origin
in which someone is living; people can be picked up elsewhere.
I have a constituency case at the moment where somebody was picked
up in Spain for an EAW issued by Luxembourg on civil rather than
criminal groundsbecause they have a dual civil and criminal
procedurewhich wasn't issued in this country. So there
are some anomalies that we certainly didn't see seven years ago
in either of those Acts.
Q6 Chair: Indeed.
One of the points of having the new treaty was to take some of
these decisions, or all of these decisions, out of the hands of
politicians
David Blunkett:
Yes, it was. And look where we are now.
Chair: and give it to the judges
to make this decision. I wonder whether you have been following
the WikiLeaks issue, because one of the leaked cables refers to
a one-to-one appeal by Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Clearly, you
weren't the Home Secretary when this was done but I would like
your comment on this: Gordon Brown's one-to-one meeting with the
American ambassador, asking the Americans to reconsider the case
of Gary McKinnon. If indeed that was the purport of the new treatyto
take it out of the hands of politicians, placing it in the hands
of judgeswere you surprised to learn from these cables
that Mr Brown met with the ambassador seeking to get that decision
changed?
David Blunkett:
No, I wasn't. I agreed some years ago that it was a really good
idea, for all our sakes. I remember discussing with Ken Clarke
in a private meeting that it would a good idea not to end up with
these cases being a political football. But inevitably in lifeas
we see right across the board, not just in these issuesyou
can't ignore something that becomes extraordinarily high profile.
As I've already indicated, in cases such as that of Gary McKinnonI'm
not going to deal with the specific case, but in such casesthere
is massive public attention. And although the treaty itself is
not responsible for the immediate removal of Garyotherwise
he wouldn't be herecases like his would have been dealt
with summarily. There was an issue for senior politicians to make
representations.
I have spoken to the Department of Justice myself
and I communicated with the previous Home and Justice Secretaries.
I won't say on what basis, except to say this. Were we looking
at a case like Gary McKinnon's seven years ago and someone had
put to me, "In this cyber age it is possible for someone
to commit a crime from one jurisdiction directly into another
with substantial potential effect. Do you want to try and deal
with this in a different way?" we probably would have reflected
on that. We certainly can't say that we can't have a system where
a country that is badly affected can't expect to take action,
because where would that leave us with China, for instance?
Q7 Chair: So you
would retain that discretion: the ability of a Prime Minister
to see an ambassador or, indeed, David Cameron when he raised
it directly with President Obama recently? You want to see that
bit of discretion retained?
David Blunkett:
In order to try and find a solution. For instance, is it possible
in the modern era, with technology that has advanced enormously
in the last seven yearswe forget just how enormouslyas
has cyber-attack, which has been reflected in the Government's
recent very welcome statements on organised crime and potential
terrorism with cyber-attack, that we might be able to use video-conferencing
much more effectively if someone is in a circumstanceit
might arise in all sorts of arenaswhere the court hearing
is in one country, the jurisdiction from which the attack took
place is in another and they are friendly countries with a proper
treaty arrangement?
Chair: Indeed. Thank you very much. You
have been very helpful so far. If you could keep your answers
a little briefer, I would be most grateful.
David Blunkett:
Only because it is dangerous territory I'm on, Chairman. So I'm
trying to give as full an answer as possible.
Q8 Lorraine Fullbrook:
Thank you, Chairman. David Blunkett, I have two questions. The
first one, going back to your point about the death penalty, I
suggest this is a spurious argument because, as you know, there
is an absolute prohibition, unless the Secretary of State receives
an adequate written assurance from the requesting state that the
death penalty will not be imposed or not be carried out if imposed.
David Blunkett:
Well, we wouldn't have a treaty. I mean, what you are really raising
is: do you believe in extradition arrangements on the lines we've
developed with the US and with the rest of the European Union?
Q9 Lorraine Fullbrook:
My second question goes to that. What exactly did you hope and
expect the new treaty and the Extradition Act to deliver, given
that the new treaty requires from the United States, when requesting
extradition from the United Kingdom, probable cause in their law
courts, but there is no corresponding requirement by the United
Kingdom from the United Statesa blatant imbalance when
we signed the treaty.
David Blunkett:
No, that's because of the nature of the US judicial system, not
because we decided that we were going to have an unbalanced Act.
That applies with the US, whether we had renewed the treaty and
introduced the new Act or not. And, as I've already indicated,
in the seven years since the signing of the treaty and the passage
of the Act, I can't think of a single case where the judicial
process in this country has not been explored to the full.
Q10 Lorraine Fullbrook:
But when you signed the treaty did you not understand that you
were giving more rights to American citizens and you were giving
away British rights of British citizens, as a Minister of State
at the time?
David Blunkett:
As Home Secretary I understood entirely what we were doing from
our position, in terms of what was available to British citizens
and, as has been explored over the last seven years, they have
been able to use their rights to the full, which is why I am confident
in being able to say what I've said this morning. Yes, I was aware
that the judicial system in the United States was different, but
we accept their judicial system as being fair and democratic and
if it isn't, then I think it is beholden on Committee members
to say so and why they believe that.
Chair: Are you done?
Lorraine Fullbrook: Can I carry on, Chairman,
please?
Chair: One more question quickly.
Q11 Lorraine Fullbrook:
Complete reciprocity has never been a feature of our extradition
arrangements, according to Baroness Scotland. And I suggest that
the United Kingdom, when you signed this treaty, were putting
the United States on a par with Albania, Turkey and Romania.
David Blunkett:
You can presume what you like, but the former Attorney General
is entirely right: we haven't. And I've given an example this
morning in relation to Luxembourg.
Q12 Lorraine Fullbrook:
But you think it is okay not to have prima facie evidence given
to the UK?
David Blunkett:
I'm not using terms like "okay". I think it is very
wise for countries in the modern era to have sensible extradition
arrangements with friendly countries.
Q13 Alun Michael:
I have two questions. The first isgoing back to this question
of principles because this is a two-way process, isn't itdo
you stand by the basic principles of reciprocal extradition arrangements
and how would you improve the system if you had the opportunity
now?
David Blunkett:
Reciprocal arrangements, in terms of accepting the democratic
nature of the judicial process and the right to request and to
have that request for extradition responded to, yes, I do accept
that. But I think we just explored complete reciprocity in terms
of the nature of the judicial systems. We wouldn't get anywhere
if we didn't do that. We have a different system to Scotland,
of course.
Q14 Alun Michael:
The other thing is that you mentioned in your earlier evidence
internet-related or cyber-crime. Would you agree that internet-related
crime has to be dealt with via extradition processes, if we're
not to have very heavy international legislation as an alternative?
David Blunkett:
Yes, I would and that's why I'm just posing ideas as to how we
might deal with that in the modern era. We certainly can't ignore
it. It's something entirely new that would not have been expected
years ago, and I think we're all coming to terms with that.
Q15 Mr Winnick:
You said, Mr Blunkett, that a condition that you consideras
indeed we all wouldthat was favourable to the signing of
the treaty is that we wouldn't hand over anybody who would be
subject to the death penalty. Would I not be right in coming to
the view that no British government could possibly have agreed
otherwise?
David Blunkett:
I'm hoping you are, but we have had debates over the years, before
my time in Parliament, on these issues. We've obviously signed
up to the European arrangements from 1951 onwards, which is why,
of course, we don't transfer people out of the country to those
areas of the world where we believe they'll be killed or tortured,
and that gives us a moral stand that we need to stand by. The
issue we were dealing with in 2003 was whether you had any extradition
arrangements with the US or not.
Q16 Mr Winnick:
On the substance of the matter, the point that has been repeatedly
made, and not only confined to what at the time were the Opposition
benches, is that the treaty is hopelesslyI emphasise "hopelessly"one-sided;
that under the treaty American prosecutors no longer need to show
there are reasonable grounds for someone to be extradited to their
country. The United States only has to demonstrate that there
is a statement of the facts of the offence and that is the end
of it.
David Blunkett:
Well, the judgment has to be made whether probable cause has been
demonstrated, whether there is a case to be heard, and I have
already said this morning that our judicial process has worked
extremely well over the last seven years in protecting people's
right to go through and challenge that assumption. That is what
people have done over the last seven years.
Q17 Mr Winnick:
But, if it's so as far as a request for extradition made by the
United States is concerned, would I not be right in saying that
the treaty means that anyone that the United Kingdom requires
to be extradited from the United States we will have to produce
far harder evidence than otherwise to the United States?
David Blunkett:
That is the issue of not having full reciprocity and you are right
about that. That is the side of the coin where there is an argument
to be made: should we have demanded that their judicial process
should be weakened in order to have absolute complete balance?
We can have a discussion about that. That is a fair point, but
it is a different one to complete imbalance.
Q18 Mr Winnick:
Why did you sign a one-sided treaty, Mr Blunkett?
David Blunkett:
Sorry, you put to me that there was a complete and total imbalance
and you then went on to use the presumption that people from this
country would simply be removed almost on the nod and they weren't,
and they haven't been and they won't be. That is the point I am
making back to you. Yes, it is true; it is harder, theoretically,
to get people out of the United States to Britain than it is out
of Britain to the US. In practice that hasn't been the case.
Q19 Steve McCabe:
Some people argue that we should just abandon the idea of speedier
extradition with countries where the judicial systems are different.
What do you think would be the downside of taking that advice?
David Blunkett:
Well, the inability of friendly countries working with us in every
other sphere, including in Europe, who have signed up to the ECHR,
such as France. When I came in as Home Secretary, one individual
had been resisting extradition to France for nine years.
Steve McCabe: Thank you.
Q20 Chair: On
the issue of other European countries, there is the case of Learco
Chindamo, the young man who murdered Philip Lawrence. We do have
a problem, do we not, with other European countries where somebody
has been resident in this country for a long period of time? The
public may feel that this particular man should be sent back to
his country of origin, but European law prevents us from doing
so.
David Blunkett:
Yes, it does. It is much wider than the discussion we are having
this morning but I think there is an issue. Of course, then you
get into questions of where freedom of movement ceases: what individuals
no longer have freedom of movement inside the EU? A very interesting
theoretical question, which I haven't thought enough about to
give you a sensible answer this morning.
Q21 Chair: Do
you think this kind of issue ought to be pressed at the JHA when
Ministers go over there?
David Blunkett:
I think it should be explored, but I think it would need someone
with greater legal knowledge than I currently have available to
me to give you a sensible way of dealing with that.
Q22 Nicola Blackwood:
As we've already mentioned, the Home Secretary has announced a
review of the extradition process and in this discussion we have
heard a few suggestions from you, such as looking at the EAW de
minimis requirement, which I think would be particularly relevant
for extraditions to Poland. I understand the Polish system requires
a trial for every criminal allegation, no matter how trivial,
which is obviously quite out of step with the way in which we
conduct justice in this country. So where exactly do you think
we could reframe the extradition process in order to gain the
advantages that you originally intended, but to get rid of some
of these very real disadvantages, which we're observing and which
are impacting British citizens?
David Blunkett:
Firstly, a time limit on when extradition can be triggered, particularly
in circumstances like Gary Mann, where arrest had already taken
place and release had been authorised and then six years later
he's back in the same position. I think that is not an acceptable
situationnot one that any one round the table in 2003 foresaw.
Secondly, on the issue of de minimis, we had a struggle
with this because, just to give an example, Germany have very
strict laws in relation to pronouncementparticular provocative
speecharising out of their experience with the Nazis, and
we had to debate at the time how we would deal with the situation,
which arose later in relation to one of our so-called historians,
in terms of what would happen in those circumstances. I'm much
more interested in the practical daytoday of someone
who would receive a community sentence or even a warning here,
but who might be given a prison sentence in another European country,
but would be subject to the EAW. I think we have to negotiate
our way through that so that we have fewer casesand you've
used Poland as a correct examplewhere people find themselves
caught up in someone else's judicial system way beyond what would
have been the case here.
Q23 Nicola Blackwood:
I'm struck as well, though, that in the amendments to the Police
and Justice Act in 2006 there was a measure put in to try and
prevent extradition where a significant part of the alleged offence
had been committed in the UK, but it required that a resolution
of both Houses would be passed in order for that to commence.
That didn't happen. Could you explain why?
David Blunkett:
No, I can't. I'd need notice of that question because I was no
longer Home Secretary and, although I've taken a real interest
in both home affairs and justice since, I haven't to the point
where I can give you an answer to that question.
Q24 Nicola Blackwood:
Do you think that we should be trying to move forward on that
point?
David Blunkett:
I think it's important that, where the substantive nature of offences
takes place on our home territory, we deal with them as a domestic
offence.
Q25 Chair: Mr
Blunkett, let us get this right for the record. You signed the
treaty, given the circumstances that were before you, having accepted,
of course, all legal advice that every Home Secretary would have
and I'm sure you had much legal advice at the time before you
signed it. But with hindsight and with all that has happened,
in terms of the evidencefor example, just three Americans
have been brought to Britain under the Extradition Act since 2004,
whereas 28 UK nationals have gone the other wayif that
treaty was brought before you now and placed before you, would
you sign it again on the same terms?
David Blunkett:
I would raise the issues that have been raised this morning, in
the context of the answers I have given you, Chairman.
Mr Winnick: A very good
answer, Mr Blunkett.
Q26 Chair: You
are quite satisfied that, even though the Act took politicians
out of the sphere of decision making, because of the workload
that Ministers had to face with looking at every single extradition
case, you are quite happy that Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries
are able to make representations and intervene in cases of this
kind?
David Blunkett:
I think it's inevitable and I think it's because new cases, in
new circumstancesmoving on as the world isthrow
up issues that sometimes could have been, but more often could
not have been, seen to have been the case when treaties were signed,
which is why I welcomed the review when the Home Secretary announced
it.
Q27 Chair: FinallyI
know you don't want to comment on individual cases, but you must
have a view, based on what you read in the newspapers and the
documents that you have seenas far as the Gary McKinnon
case is concerned, do you think that would be an appropriate case
for a Home Secretary to basically say, "He can't go back."?
David Blunkett:
The reason why the current Home Secretary is taking her time over
it is because of the nature of the complications and the difficulty
that has been presented to previous Home and Justice Secretaries
since the case arosenot just in terms of our relationship
with the United States, which is critical to Britain's well-being,
but because of the implications down the line and the precedent
set. I have said this morning, Chair, as far as I can go, I think
it would be a good idea to explore whether, if the US insist that
the case should be heard within US jurisdictionwhich is
their right and would have been before the treaty was signedwe
might be able to use new technology as a way of getting round
what is a very specific case, with a specific claim of illness
arising out of Asperger's and the danger to an individual's health.
I think that is why the Home Secretary is taking her time.
Chair: Indeed. Mr Blunkett,
you've been extremely helpful. Thank you very much indeed for
coming in this morning. Thank you.
Could I call to the dais our next witnesses from
Fair Trials International, Justice and Liberty?
|