Examination of Witnesses (Questions 400-420)
Senior District Judge Timothy Workman
23 MAY 2007
Q400 Chairman: Quite! But I would
have thought there is nothing to prevent a discretion here? It
merely says it shall not prevent; it does not say it will require
the Member State?
District Judge Workman: That is right, yes.
Q401 Chairman: It would seem to me
there ought to be a discretion really as to which of these various
proceedings to give priority, between, say, if the French want
him back to try him for rape as opposed to a request for extradition
to take somebody to the States on terrorism grounds. Section 22
of the Extradition Act 2003 is the one which appears to require,
as you say, that he has to be dealt with in one way or another
for the UK offence first, even if it is withdrawal or discontinuance.
They might do that with the insurance case if he is wanted for
terrorism in Spain?
District Judge Workman: Yes. It is surprising
how difficult it is to get that across.
Q402 Chairman: Quite! You are absolutely
right. But you would welcome a discretion under the ESO scheme
which does not exist under the EAW scheme?
District Judge Workman: Yes.
Q403 Chairman: Now can we just come
to deadlines? The European Arrest Warrant has strict deadlines.
This ESO scheme only has the deadlines, as I understand it, set
out in Article 12, five days to decide whether to recognise and
execute an ESO. There are provisions for review, but at the early
stage when one is trying to settle any conditions under Article
6(2) there is absolutely nothing. If one does not adopt what you
say is the straightforward simplistic approach of having in effect
a number of common conditions which one almost automatically imposes
and needs only scant agreement to do, if you do not have that
scheme you have actually got to reach agreement with the issuing
state?
District Judge Workman: Yes.
Q404 Chairman: It could take weeks
and weeks and this chap is lingering in custody awaiting this
agreement?
District Judge Workman: Yes.
Q405 Chairman: Should it be tightened
up? Could it be?
District Judge Workman: Clearly, any matter
of bail must be dealt with at the earliest opportunity, but if
there has to be this discussion between the two judicial authorities
it is going to be quite difficult to do. Even if it is by video-link,
I think that would still be difficult.
Q406 Chairman: As you say, you have
then got the difficulties of interpretation and he ought to be
present there, too, anyway?
District Judge Workman: Yes. There is another
aspect and that is in relation to the European Arrest Warrant
the response from the other states does vary a lot. Some places
are very swift and responsive, but others take quite a long time
and I do not think we would find it very easy to get control of
this unless there was a time limit.
Q407 Chairman: The scheme as a whole
strikes me—and I would like to know if it strikes you too—as
being actually much more difficult to operate, a more complicated
scheme than the European Arrest Warrant?
District Judge Workman: I think it is, yes,
very much more difficult, in its detail. I think its principle
is quite simple and clear and clearly worthwhile, but the detail
I think is much more difficult to work out than the European Arrest
Warrant.
Q408 Chairman: You presumably have
had an awful lot of citizens of other Member States before you
as suspects and you have had to consider granting them bail without
the benefit of any scheme such as this? Is it fair to say, for
the very obvious reason that they would be more difficult to police
on bail than a native of this country, they get bail less often?
District Judge Workman: There is, of course,
a big distinction between the European supervision order and the
European Arrest Warrant.
Q409 Chairman: No, I am not talking
about the European Arrest Warrant. I am now talking about our
own internal cases. You have got a Polish man who is over here,
or a French woman over here done for shoplifting, or whatever
it is. Would they be less likely to get bail for the very reason
that they do not have community ties here, that they are more
likely to go, more likely not to be available when you want to
try them?
District Judge Workman: I think the answer must
be, yes. I hope it is not a very great impediment to bail.
Q410 Chairman: Why is it not? How
do you deal with it under the present scheme?
District Judge Workman: Bail, I think, is very
much a matter in the round and if we have somebody who is here
permanently resident I do not think any of us would worry unduly
about it. If somebody is here temporarily, then there is more
difficulty, but if again he has an address and we can ask for
his passport, because we can -
Q411 Chairman: An address here, so
you would hope to keep him here?
District Judge Workman: Yes. Then I do not think
most of us, for most offences, would find that difficult, but
clearly I am afraid it all depends upon the case itself, what
he is facing and what his circumstances are. But one cannot deny
that it is a factor.
Q412 Chairman: Quite. We have discussed
a number of difficulties which arise out of the scheme as presently
we understand it. Have we failed to spot any? Are there others
that we ought to be alert to?
District Judge Workman: I think we have broadly
covered the matters that I was looking at.
Q413 Lord Mance: Just one general
question. There was reference at the outset to the Eurobail scheme,
about which we heard considerable evidence. That would involve
an automatic remission to the home state, the state of usual residence,
except perhaps in cases which are going to be over quite quickly,
and possibly (though one would have to define them) in cases where
no bail was conceivable, perhaps pragmatically conceivable. It
has been suggested that that would have the merit that the original
bail decision, as well as the enforcement, would be dealt with
by the home state, and of course if bail was refused once the
man or woman had been sent to their home state at least they would
then be in prison in their home state?
District Judge Workman: Yes.
Q414 Lord Mance: That really has
not been worked out, but does that have attractions as a scenario?
District Judge Workman: I think the best court
for deciding bail is the court which is actually responsible for
the offence, in principle, because I think that is the starting
point. If it were possible to devise a system where, if they were
refused bail, they could be remanded abroad then I suppose there
is some merit in that.
Q415 Chairman: Remanded in custody
abroad?
District Judge Workman: Yes.
Q416 Chairman: That is a different
scheme again.
District Judge Workman: Yes. I do not think
that is actually feasible in terms of preparation of cases, and
so on.
Q417 Chairman: We have been very
often looking at these cases in terms of UK citizens being suspects
in other Member States, but looking at it the other way round,
if you have a suspect for rape who wants to go back to Lithuania
and you think you jolly well ought to be in control as to where
he is and what he is doing before his substantive trial comes
up?
District Judge Workman: I think that would be
our view, that it was us who were to be primarily responsible,
yes.
Chairman: Lord Bowness.
Lord Bowness: My Lord Chairman, the question
of Eurobail has been already dealt with, thank you.
Q418 Lord Lester of Herne Hill: We
have not really, I think, asked many questions about this in evidence
generally, but Article 13 is dealing with requests for review
and the more I read that the more I think about the District Court
in Scunthorpe in conversation with the District Court in Budejovice
in the Czech Republic, on a review under this mechanism and the
need for, for example, consultation, and the more bureaucratic
and difficult to operate it seems to be. I do not know whether
you have looked at any of that, but it does seem to me to be not
a very easy system to operate?
District Judge Workman: I agree entirely. I
was a little mystified, to be honest, by the review which has
to take place within 60 days because some remands on bail are
for lengthy periods of time and it may be that everything is all
right for the first two months, but after three months there may
be a change of address or a change of somewhere to report.
Q419 Chairman: I think the Commission's
witnesses explained. It is not very well drafted as it is, but
what is intended is that the intervals within which you can complain
should not be longer than this. That is really the point. You
must not delay it for more than 60 days. I think it was Lord Mance
who first pointed out that as presently drawn it reads ridiculously.
District Judge Workman: Yes.
Q420 Chairman: Are there any other
questions? If not, it remains for me to thank you very much indeed,
Judge, on behalf of the Committee. You have been enormously helpful.
It has been very nice to hear from somebody who (a) has been dealing
with European Arrest Warrants, and (b) if this comes in is going
to have to deal with this, too. Thank you very much for giving
us your time.
District Judge Workman: Thank you very much
for inviting me.
| 
