The double risk precludes extradition if a provision of UK law, including the abuse of jurisdiction of the trial, results in the dismissal of the requested person (Part 1, Section 12; Part 2, section 80). Extradition is excluded in indictment cases where a substantial part of the alleged criminal conduct took place in the United Kingdom and the judge decides that extradition is not in the interests of justice (Part 1, Section 19B; Part 2, section 83(b). The judge cannot consider this suspension if he receives a certificate from the United Kingdom Public Prosecutor`s Office confirming that the person is not being prosecuted in the United Kingdom. The court will take into account a number of specific factors when assessing the interest of the judiciary, including the sought-after person`s links to the United Kingdom. The impact of the loss of the European arrest warrant on the facilitation of extradition between the UK and EU Member States, as well as the likelihood that the UK will no longer be able to participate in key security and judicial cooperation instruments, including Europol and Eurojust, due to Brexit, have raised serious concerns among law enforcement authorities. The government has repeatedly stated that it remains “determined to seek a balanced and reciprocal agreement in this area”, otherwise “the UK has well-developed and well-repeated plans for the transition from cooperation with EU member states to other non-European arrangements by the end of the transition period, if available”. 1 It is not clear what these plans are. Whatever the end result, anyone who may be extradited should not hesitate to seek legal advice on this complex and changing application process. The procedure for extradition from the United Kingdom to these territories follows the following steps: if a judge considers that extradition is compatible with the rights of a person sought under the ECHR, the judge orders extradition in a Part 1 case and forwards it to the Secretary of State in a Part 2 case. However, an appeal under Article 108 may also be lodged at any time prior to extradition in accordance with Article 108. If a request for provisional arrest is granted, the person is usually arrested in the requested State before the extradition documents are formally presented.
If someone is provisionally arrested, there is a deadline within which the documents must be submitted. That time limit shall be laid down in the contract or in other agreements relating to extradition agreements concluded with that State. The UKCA works with the competent law enforcement authority to ensure that documents are delivered in time for the UKCA to ship. The delivery process is complex and can be stressful. Risk management and mitigation can help reduce concerns. In our experience, the important considerations are that if one of these requirements is not met or if a bar is identified, the person will be fired. Otherwise, at the end of the extradition hearing, extradition will be ordered for a Part 1 case (Section 21(3)) or a Part 2 case will be forwarded to the Secretary of State for decision. The apartment in question was the Ecuadorian embassy and the man arrested was Julian Assange, who could now face forced relocation or extradition to the US to answer espionage charges. At the time of writing, Assange is in Belmarsh prison awaiting the resumption of extradition proceedings, which have been halted due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office provides an online register of contracts that can be searched for extradition contracts (treaties.fco.gov.uk/responsive/app/consolidatedSearch/). In Part 1 cases, the judge decides whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the competent authorities in the requesting area have taken decisions to charge and bring the requested person before a court (Article 12A). If these decisions have not been taken and this is not solely due to the absence of the requested person, extradition shall be excluded, unless the requesting territory can prove criminally that the decisions were taken or that a breach is solely due to the absence of the requested person.
A requested person must demonstrate valid reasons to believe that, after extradition, there is a real risk of receiving treatment that would be contrary to article 3, and often the conditions of detention in the country requesting extradition are used to indicate a possible violation of article 3. In the cases of Part 2, hostage-taking considerations may also constitute an obstacle to extradition (§ 83). The United Kingdom extradites its own nationals and residents. Nationality or domicile may be relevant to the Bar Association or to the assessment of whether extradition would constitute a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR. Part 2 contains a similar provision providing for removal within 28 days of the expiry of the 14-day period allowed to file an application for leave to appeal against the Secretary of State`s extradition order if no request is made (section 117) or after an unsuccessful appeal (section 118). The final examination at an extradition hearing is whether the extradition of a person would be compatible with the ECHR (Part 1, § 21; Part 2, section 87). For Part 1 cases, the court must also consider proportionality (Article 21A). Paragraph 21A contains a number of specific aspects that the judge must take into account when deciding whether extradition would be disproportionate: the seriousness of the conduct, the likely sanction in the event of a conviction and the possibility that the requesting area will take fewer coercive measures. If the judge is satisfied that all the procedural requirements are met and that none of the legal obstacles to extradition apply, he must refer the matter to the Secretary of State so that he can decide whether to order extradition. Publication of updated information on extradition procedures.
In Part 1 cases, a person must be brought to court for an initial hearing as soon as possible after arrest. At the end of this hearing, if the case is to be contested, the extradition hearing must begin within 21 days of the arrest (Article 8(1)(a) and (4)). It is not uncommon for an extradition hearing to begin immediately to meet this requirement, but then be postponed to a later date. Extradition procedures and treaties between the United Kingdom and other countries, the role of the Secretary of State, the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, and the review of extradition. The judge must ensure that the conduct described in the arrest warrant amounts to an extraditable offence (including, in almost all cases, the requirement that the conduct would constitute a criminal offence if it had taken place in the UNITED Kingdom and a minimum penalty) and that none of the legal obstacles to extradition apply. While INTERPOL Red Notices are a worthwhile means of obtaining extradition (see our previous blog post here), they are more commonly used when the whereabouts of a wanted person are unknown. As a general rule, legal systems rely on bilateral and multilateral agreements to initiate extradition requests. As a general rule, these treaties do not oblige a State to comply with a request for extradition of a counterparty, but contain clear rules according to which the request is executed. Where a request for extradition is addressed to the ukCA central authority within the Home Office, the request is valid if the extradition is declared for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person accused or convicted of a crime in a category 2 area and if the request is made by a competent authority on behalf of that territory. If these basic criteria are met, the Secretary of State certifies the application and submits it to the courts. .