Extradition - Home Affairs Committee Contents


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 treaty—specifically the treaty with America—was 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 all—not entirely, but virtually all—parliamentarians 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 cyber—in 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 balance—particularly given that the treaty had run out—in 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 with—like the NatWest Three or current ones—where 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 grounds—because they have a dual civil and criminal procedure—which 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 treaty—to take it out of the hands of politicians, placing it in the hands of judges—were 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 life—as we see right across the board, not just in these issues—you can't ignore something that becomes extraordinarily high profile. As I've already indicated, in cases such as that of Gary McKinnon—I'm not going to deal with the specific case, but in such cases—there is massive public attention. And although the treaty itself is not responsible for the immediate removal of Gary—otherwise he wouldn't be here—cases 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 years—we forget just how enormously—as 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 circumstance—it might arise in all sorts of arenas—where 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 States—a 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 is—going back to this question of principles because this is a two-way process, isn't it—do 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 consider—as indeed we all would—that 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 hopelessly—I 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 situation—not 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 pronouncement—particular provocative speech—arising 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 cases—and you've used Poland as a correct example—where 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 evidence—for example, just three Americans have been brought to Britain under the Extradition Act since 2004, whereas 28 UK nationals have gone the other way—if 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 circumstances—moving on as the world is—throw 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: Finally—I 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 seen—as 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 arose—not 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 jurisdiction—which is their right and would have been before the treaty was signed—we 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?



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2011
Prepared 16 March 2011