Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for her offer to take the matter away and to consider the drafting. I was not being flippant when I said that I find it difficult to understand. As a non-lawyer I certainly find it difficult. I was advised by those who are experts in extradition law, but they too found a lack of clarity. I welcome her offer to see whether the clarity can be improved. The Minister made the point that post-extradition requests are rare, but although they may be rare, as ever it is important that the procedure is right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]

Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 54 [Questions for decision at consent hearing]:

[Amendment No. 100 not moved.]

Clause 54 agreed to.

Clause 55 [Request for consent to further extradition to category 1 territory]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 100A:

On Question, amendment agreed to.

1 Jul 2003 : Column GC184

[Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 not moved.]

Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 56 [Questions for decision at consent hearing]:

[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]

Clause 56 agreed to.

Clause 57 [Consent to further extradition to category 2 territory]:

Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 103A:

    Page 29, line 6, leave out "an" and insert "a judicial"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 not moved.]

Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 58 [Return of person to serve remainder of sentence]:

Viscount Bledisloe moved Amendment No. 106:

    Page 30, line 3, leave out "does not" and insert "shall"

The noble Viscount said: With the leave of the Committee I shall move the amendment, although my name is not attached to it. I have not spoken to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, in whose name the amendment stands, but I believe I understand what it is about. It seems to make a good point.

I hope that the noble Baroness will tell me if I have understood the matter incorrectly, but it seems that the noble and learned Lord is saying: "I am in prison in England; I am extradited to a foreign country during my sentence to stand trial for some offences; I am kept in custody in that foreign country; the charges are dropped or I am acquitted completely and I return after having spent nine unpleasant months in a Greek prison only to find that those nine months do not count towards my sentence and I have to spend nine months longer in prison". I accept that it is not the fault of the British Government that such a person has served those nine extra months, but it seems hard that effectively he has had nine months added to his sentence.

The noble and learned Lord appears to have been modest as he does not refer to someone not being sentenced in the foreign country or only being fined instead. In fining a person, the foreign country may take into account the fact that he has been in custody. If someone never proceeds to trial or is acquitted completely, why can that not be taken into account in the sentence that they serve in this country? It would probably be more unpleasant to be in prison in a foreign country so the double counting seems especially hard. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: It seems that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, has raised an issue in point. He raised it at Second Reading, when there was some misunderstanding among us as to the precise point that he was trying to raise. The amendment crystallises it.

I am not aware of the kind of conditions in which people are held within all the jurisdictions that will be covered by Part 1. However, they will vary

1 Jul 2003 : Column GC185

considerably: some will be more allied to remand conditions, which, although extremely unpleasant, are certainly not the same as being held in prison on a sentence. As I understand it, in other jurisdictions conditions will be far more allied to those that we have here when serving a sentence. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, has tabled a very interesting point.

Lord Goodhart: I, too, think that there is some substance in the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. I am not sure that the drafting covers all possible situations. For instance, it does not cover the situation referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, of charges being dropped with the result that there is no acquittal. It also seems doubtful whether the noble and learned Lord's proposal should apply in any event where someone is on bail in the country to which he has been extradited, as is possible.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has done full justice to the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. He has put it precisely and quite succinctly.

We have difficulty with the point because of the problems that we will have in differentiating between individuals who are transferred, dealt with, convicted and sentenced and those transferred, dealt with and acquitted. There is a problem with parity and how we deal with that.

I shall be absolutely frank. Having considered the point and listened to the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, this may be a point where the administrative and other difficulties presented as insurmountable in many pages—I shall not delight the Committee by reading them—could prove surmountable. I cannot say that that is so, but I would like to tease out the matter to see whether there is any merit in it. I say that because the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, referred to the division of the length of time.

Although I have never been at Her Majesty's pleasure for any significant time other than to visit residents, I am given to understand that some other jurisdictions are much more to the liking of those incarcerated there. So it is not all doom and gloom. Some people may be very happy to stay in another jurisdiction's more generous accommodation for nine months or longer.

There may be something in the point, so I shall look at it and return at a later stage. Although I cannot guarantee that the response will be favourable, it is worth considering the matter.

Viscount Bledisloe: I am extremely grateful and express gratitude on behalf of the noble and learned Lord for that very co-operative approach. I accept that conditions may be nicer in some countries, but one would have to accept swings and roundabouts. If the prison to which an extradited person went was nastier than in England, it would create some legislative difficulty.

1 Jul 2003 : Column GC186

I accept—albeit with some nervousness, given that I am speaking on behalf of the former Master of the Rolls—that the drafting is somewhat defective. He is, fortunately, former, so I cannot suffer for it! The drafting does not deal with the situation where a man is on bail in a foreign country. However, I imagine that if he were released on bail abroad, we would rapidly put him back in prison here.

The noble Baroness has said that she will deal with the substance of the matter. I am extremely grateful to her. I shall convey her intention to the noble and learned Lord.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I should explain that, when a prisoner is extradited while serving a prison term here, one of the conditions upon which we agree extradition is that he will not be granted bail but kept in custody and then safely returned to serve the remainder of his period of imprisonment. I wish to tease out such factors. The situation may be insurmountable; we may have to leave the Bill as it stands, but there is a chance that we can do something about it.

Lord Goodhart: Surely the fact that there is a condition strengthens the argument for taking it into account.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: That is why I shall look at it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.15 p.m.

[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]

Clause 58 agreed to.

Clause 59 agreed to.

Clause 60 [Costs where discharge ordered]:

Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 108:

    Page 31, line 22, at end insert—

"( ) In determining an amount under subsections (6) and (7), the judge or court making the order shall give his or its reasons for calculating the amount of compensation."

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 108, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 230. They are based in Clause 60 which provides for an order to be given for payment of an amount of money provided by Parliament for a person who falls into one of the categories under subsection (1) of those discharged. Subsection (6) explains that the amount payable should be decided by the relevant judge or court as the amount which they think is reasonably sufficient to compensate the person for any expenses incurred as a result of extradition proceedings under this part of the Bill. Subsection (7) allows the relevant judge or court to come to a different decision where he or it considers it inappropriate for the person to recover the full amount under subsection (6).

1 Jul 2003 : Column GC187

Our amendments attempt to introduce transparency into the process. They propose that when the judge or the court makes the order, they should explain how they have calculated that amount of compensation. I beg to move.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page