Police and Justice Bill

There is a deep misunderstanding on the part of the Opposition of the issue of reciprocity, perhaps because of certain cases that have arisen. We have reciprocity precisely because of the Extradition Act 2003. Before it was passed, the bar for the US to extradite people from the United Kingdom was much higher, and was based on prima facie evidence. For the UK to extradite people from the US, the requirement was probable cause but, as a result of the 2003 Act, we have come into line. One could characterise the requirement as one of reasonable suspicion, but the reciprocal arrangement is based on the fact that it is not just identification that is required. Sufficient information is needed to issue a warrant for arrest, and that is the basis of reciprocity with the United States. There is never 100 per cent. reciprocity, but probable cause and reasonable suspicion are equivalent. We do not require prima facie evidence from many of the countries on the list, because we trust their judicial system and we have reciprocity. However, we do require prima facie evidence from the Cook Islands and other countries. Turning to the proposal to insert the word, ““forum””, in schedule 14, the Opposition wish to turn our prosecutorial system on its head and subvert it. They suggest setting up a system whereby a judge considering a request to extradite an individual makes a decision as to whether they should be prosecuted in this country. If they do not think that they should be, that individual could escape scot-free. Extradition aims to bring people who have committed a crime to justice. The ordinary people of this or any other country want justice to be applied equally to the perpetrators of white-collar crime and to the perpetrators of any other crime. The 2003 Act aims to speed up and simplify the process, but it has never applied only to terrorist acts. It applies to any crime that attracts a 12-month sentence. On that basis, I urge the House to reject the Opposition amendments.