UK-US Extradition Treaty

Did the hon. Gentleman see the treaty before the report was published? I think not. The full text was published two months later. In recent days, the Government have claimed in strong terms that the treaty is reciprocal—a claim repeated by the Prime Minister today. They say that the arrangements with the United States are, despite all appearances, reciprocal and equivalent. As my noble Friend Lord Goodhart said in another place last night: "““That is simply and totally incorrect.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 July 2006; Vol. 684, c. 630.]" Let me explain. Article 8 of the UK-US extradition treaty sets out the new procedures between the two countries. It states that the requesting country—either the United Kingdom or the United States—must provide"““a statement of the facts of the offense(s)””." Then, in paragraph 3(c), an additional burden is placed on the United Kingdom when requesting an extradition from the United States. The provision requires:"““for requests to the United States””—" to the United States only—"““such information as would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense for which extradition is requested.””" That fulfils the now well known requirement for ““probable cause”” for extradition from the United States, in line with the terms of the US constitution. However, there is no requirement for any corresponding information for extradition from the United Kingdom. Before the issue hit the headlines, the Government admitted that lack of reciprocity. In a Committee of the House on 15 December 2003, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), then a Home Office Minister, said:"““when we make extradition requests to the United States, we will need to submit sufficient evidence to establish ‘probable cause’.””" She acknowledged that that is a lower test than the previous prima facie standard, but added that it was"““a higher threshold than we ask of the United States, and I make no secret of that.””—[Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 15 December 2003; c. 7.]" In another place, on 16 December last year, the noble Baroness Scotland repeated the same sentiment in almost identical terms. Those admissions of two and a half years ago are in total contrast to the Prime Minister’s statement to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) last week, that"““it is not true that the United States has a different evidential burden from this country. The probable cause, which is the burden that the United States places on countries that want to extradite from the United States, is analogous to what we now provide under the Extradition Act 2003.””—[Official Report, 5 July 2006; Vol. 448, c. 807.]" The Government cannot have it both ways. The treaty does, as I have explained, place different evidential burdens on the two parties. Either it is not reciprocal, as Ministers have repeatedly confirmed for months, or—miraculously—it is now reciprocal, in accordance with the Prime Minister’s pronouncements last week and today.