B1514 – Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment) 2019 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
B1514 – Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment) 2019, TSR Conservative and Unionist Party


A

B I L L

TO



amend the Extradition Act 2003 to prevent onward extradition.


BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—


1 Amendment to include a barring criterion
i. The following is added to Part 1 (11) (1) of Extradition Act 2003:
(k) the possibility of an onward extradition.

ii. The following is added to Part 2 (79) (1) of Extradition Act 2003:
(f) the possibility of an onward extradition.

iii. The following in Part 2 (79) (1) of Extradition Act 2003:
(e)forum.
is replaced by:
(e)forum;

2 Amendment to explain the barring criterion
i. The following is added to Part 1 of Extradition Act 2003 as item 13A:
13A The possibility of an onward extradition
A person’s extradition to a category 1 territory is barred by reason of extraneous considerations if (and only if) it appears that—
(a) the person concerned could be transferred to another jurisdiction by the requesting authority; or
(b) the person concerned could be extradited to a jurisdiction by the requesting authority that does not have an extradition treaty with the United Kingdom; or
(c) the person concerned could be extradited to a jurisdiction by the requesting authority which otherwise would have been barred under this Act.

ii. The following is added to Part 2 of Extradition Act 2003 as item 81A:
81A The possibility of an onward extradition
A person’s extradition to a category 1 territory is barred by reason of extraneous considerations if (and only if) it appears that—
(a) the person concerned could be transferred to another jurisdiction by the requesting authority; or
(b) the person concerned could be extradited to a jurisdiction by the requesting authority that does not have an extradition treaty with the United Kingdom; or
(c) the person concerned could be extradited to a jurisdiction by the requesting authority which otherwise would have been barred under this Act.


3 Short title and extent
(1) This Act may be cited as the Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment) 2019.
(2) This Act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.

Notes
Currently, the judge is not required to consider the possibility of an onward extradition or legal or illegal transfer of a person extradited from the United Kingdom to another jurisdiction. Once that person is extradited, the United Kingdom can no longer influence or stop an onward extradition, ever if there was a human right concern (eg if the onward extradition would be to a jurisdiction where the crime committed would lead to torture or a loss a life).

Logically, it would not make sense for an extradition request to be entertained if the final destination for the person is somewhere and for a case that does not fulfill the requirements set out in this act, let alone to a place where the United Kingdom does not have an extradition treaty with, for whatever reason.

The risk of such an onward extradition is genuine. For example, Spain - a Category 1 country - has extradited several Taiwanese nationals to the People's Republic of China, which has no extradition treaty with us, and would not likely not have satisfied the requirements set out in this act.

Another example is Hong Kong - a Category 2 country - where an extradition bill was pushed earlier this year to make it possible to extradite persons to mainland China. Under the bill, the extraditions would have largely been executively decided, with limited judicial oversight and no legislative input, and the executive is wholly appointed by the Chinese's People Congress.

Granted, the former case did not concern persons extradited from the United Kingdom, and the latter bill mentioned has not been able to go through its second reading in Hong Kong, the point of this amendment is to update the law before it is outdated and before the loophole is being used.
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
Aye.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
Strong aye.
0
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
Aye ofc
0
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
Mr speaker, perhaps you can clarify for me what the italicisation of a word does to the word in the interpretation of an act, I refer to 1(iii) when making this comment.

Otherwise I am broadly supportive of this bill and look forward to voting for it in the aye lobby.
0
JMR2019.
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
I think this is a sensible act on first glance.
0
LeapingLucy
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
Aye.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
This seems a sensible proposal, especially as we would (I hope) never want to extradite a person to face the possibility of the death penalty.
0
The Mogg
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
Aye Aye Captain

Spoiler:
Show
End me now please.
0
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by Aph)
Mr speaker, perhaps you can clarify for me what the italicisation of a word does to the word in the interpretation of an act, I refer to 1(iii) when making this comment.

Otherwise I am broadly supportive of this bill and look forward to voting for it in the aye lobby.
It seems a very pedantic little bit of the bill but I think what's being amended there is the full stop to a semi-colon.
0
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
Aye
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
It seems a very pedantic little bit of the bill but I think what's being amended there is the full stop to a semi-colon.
I agree, that seems to be the change there.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
So let me see if I have this straight. This bill would require a judge to consider whether the jurisdiction that the UK was contemplating extraditing someone to would then further extradite them to another country right?

In what situations would/could this arise? Hong Kong and Spain have been mentioned, but only as one-step (direct) extraditions.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
What is it with Conservative bills and inability to provide links?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/contents

The act this is amending ^

(Original post by Saracen's Fez)
It seems a very pedantic little bit of the bill but I think what's being amended there is the full stop to a semi-colon.
Yes, because adding (k) afterwards would mean it isn't the last in the list. I agree it might be clearer written as changing (j) to (j) and (k) rather than changing (j) to (j) and adding (k) but yeah. Oh well.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
Mr Speaker this bill lacks a commencement date. I hope this is something the Conservative party will change before division.




If Part 2(79)(e) is being changed then surely part 1(11)(j) should also be changed? Otherwise the first is rendered irrelevant if the second is to remain incorrect.




Section 2 is worded adequately.

Though I'm not sure this bill would create a huge amount of change as surely there wouldn't be a huge amount of legal evidence to anticipate the possible future actions of another country beyond a previous precedent existing. Could the author perhaps offer the house an idea of the scale of countries willing to extradite people to countries which would be in breach of this act? If it's going to remain at 2 then I'm pretty tempted to abstain since I don't believe this bill would do anything.
0
Joleee
Badges: 18
#16
Report 1 month ago
#16
i'm so confused.

is it not under the treaties that 'a person extradited...may not be the subject of onward extradition or surrender for any offense committed prior to extradition to the Requesting State unless the Requested State consents'.

for instance, article 18 of the Extraction Treaty between UK, NI and USA
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243246/7146.pdf
1
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
(Original post by Aph)
Mr speaker, perhaps you can clarify for me what the italicisation of a word does to the word in the interpretation of an act, I refer to 1(iii) when making this comment.

Otherwise I am broadly supportive of this bill and look forward to voting for it in the aye lobby.
I did it to indicate passages from the original law and the new texts. Although I did miss one bit.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#18
Baron of Sealand

Could you please provide a commencement date for this bill. Either on the thread (and I’ll just edit it in) or before a second reading/division. Cheers.
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 month ago
#19
Bit confused, I googled 'Onwards Extradition' and couldn't quite figure this bill out.

Someone care to explain it to be like a 5 year old before I comment on it critically?
0
Baron of Sealand
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 month ago
#20
(Original post by Andrew97)
Baron of Sealand

Could you please provide a commencement date for this bill. Either on the thread (and I’ll just edit it in) or before a second reading/division. Cheers.
Thanks.

4 Commencement
The provisions of this amendment come into force upon royal ascent.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (40)
26.67%
No (110)
73.33%

Watched Threads

View All