Examination of Witnesses (Questions 300-306)
Ms Louise Hodges, Mr Anand Doobay and Ms Julia Bateman
9 MAY 2007
Q300 Chairman: Under the European
Arrest Warrant, automatically a domestic prosecution takes precedence,
does it?
Mr Doobay: Yes.
Q301 Chairman: Even if the
European Arrest Warrant is for terrorism and the domestic prosecution
is for shoplifting?
Mr Doobay: My Lord Chairman, in terms of competing
requests then the Act specifies that those types of circumstances
are to be considered; the relative seriousness of the offences,
the place where they were committed and the time.
Q302 Chairman: It must be
for consideration as to whether these criteria are introduced
into the Framework Decision?
Mr Doobay: Or, alternatively, into the implementing
legislation; but certainly we would not support an informal model
where it is simply left up to an executing Member State to take
soundings, or not, if they desire.
Q303 Lord Lester of Herne Hill:
You cannot leave it to the Member States to implement without
sufficient criteria in the Framework Decision otherwise you get
just a complete lack of harmony. There must be reasonable legal
certainty in the Framework Decision itself as to what Member States
are meant to do in implementing?
Mr Doobay: Actually, certainly I would agree
with that; but having seen what has happened with the European
Arrest Warrant, which is entirely silent on this, and therefore
the only way that it has been dealt with is through the UK's implementing
legislation, I would not disagree with that, as a principle.
Q304 Chairman: Can we then
come finally to the question of procedural safeguards. I rather
think the Law Society regret the fact that the Framework Decision
on procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings has not achieved
success. Is that correct?
Ms Bateman: Yes, certainly; and may I say, at
this point, My Lord Chairman, we really welcome and appreciate
the attention that this Committee has given to this issue, because
it has kept the debate alive, so I would just like to add that.
Certainly, `disappointment' is a weak word in this sense, that
the `procedural safeguards' has not gone forward.
Q305 Chairman: You would like
to see more safeguards explicitly brought into the Framework Decision?
Ms Hodges: In the absence of any overreaching
procedural safeguards instrument.
Q306 Chairman: I think that
absence is pretty plainly going to continue?
Ms Hodges: I think, yes. Our understanding is
that there is an outside hope that it may be applicable to European
Arrest Warrant measures only, and only for those surrender proceedings,
but again that may have moved on since the last information that
I received. In those circumstances, I think it is essential that
procedural safeguards are recognised within this instrument, and
at each stage where, in our view, the suspect should have an active
part in the process. Obviously, the key ones are to have legal
advice so that they can understand and appreciate the process
that they are involved in, and interpretation, for exactly the
same reasons. Those would be the two key procedural safeguards
that we would identify need to be within this Framework Decision.
Chairman: Thank you all very much. Thank you all
for your enormously helpful evidence. Thank you for coming, we
have really been most assisted.
| 
