The Association of Chief Police Officers - Parliament

Bar Council –Written evidenceform to fill in, no requirement for prima facie evidence (that had been largely abolishedanyway within Europe, under the 1957 Convention), and limited grounds for non-execution.The Executive no longer plays any part in the decision.59. It is difficult to see why the EAW is viewed as a centralist federalist measure when itspurpose is to return a suspect to a national court, thus facilitating the exercise of nationalsovereignty over crimes within that nation’s jurisdiction. The EAW was declared a successby the European Commission in 2007. The statistics available reveal its growing applicationamongst the member states.7 It was the subject of careful and detailed review in the ScottBaker Report of 2011. In 2009 the UK received some 4000 EAW requests; in 2010 thatnumber rose to 4578. Note too that, contrary to some of the statements being made aboutits abuse, it is our understanding that only a relatively small number of cases requestingextradition from the UK involved UK nationals.60. There is broad agreement among practitioners, the Member States and the EUinstitutions that the EAW could and should be improved. The lack of a de minimis rulemeans that Courts in this country have seen requests for the return of fugitives over suchminor crimes as theft of a chicken (or in one case a piglet; in another a wheelbarrow), orfailure to pay the last Hire Purchase installment on a second hand vacuum cleaner. Clearly itmay be thought inappropriate to use the panoply of international law in such cases. Inaddition, the implementation of proper cross border bail provisions (the EuropeanSupervision Order already referred to) would alleviate what can amount to real hardship.There are also calls for the inclusion of a requirement of legal representation of the suspector defendant in both the issuing and executing state8, and for the possibility of costs ordersto discourage issuing states from frivolous use of the measure. The EAW is not perfect, butthere are moves afoot to improve it.61. The EAW however replaced a much more cumbersome structure. It has substantiallycut down the average time an extradition request takes, while increasing the numbers offugitives returned. The earlier arrangements were, by definition, acknowledged to beimperfect when they were replaced by the EAW. It would be a retrograde step to revert tothem and (particularly as regards Executive involvement) out of keeping with currentextradition thought.62. If the EAW were unavailable, the UK would need to rely on pre-EAW extraditionarrangements, in so far as they still exist; and if not, create new ones between the MemberStates. In the first instance, that would mean falling back on the Council of Europe’s 1957Convention on Extradition. However, although the UK may be able to rely upon it, otherMember States (particularly monist states) are likely to have repealed the Conventionfollowing the adoption of the EAW Framework Decision. Therefore, the opt out mayrequire the UK to conclude bilateral or multilateral agreements with each Member State.Question 11: What would the implications be for United Kingdom police forces,prosecution authorities and law enforcement agencies – operationally,practically and financially – if the Government chose to exercise its opt-out?7 See Council document, Replies to questionnaire on the implementation of the European arrest warrant, Years 2009, 2010,2011 respectively, available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/documents?lang=en8 JUSTICE, European Arrest Warrants, Ensuring an Effective Defence (2012), available athttp://www.justice.org.uk/resources.php/328/european-arrest-warrants46