Police and Justice Bill

My Lords, that is a most helpful indication. As I have said, questions about the most appropriate forum should be looked at on a case-by-case basis by independent prosecutors from the relevant jurisdictions. I know that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General has been in discussions with the United States Attorney-General, Alberto Gonzales. His officials are considering draft guidance that would cover serious, sensitive or complex criminal cases where it is apparent to prosecutors that there are issues of jurisdiction to be decided. Your Lordships will know that if at any stage our prosecutors come to the view that there are charges which should properly be prosecuted in this country, it is always and at all stages open to us so to do. In particular, consideration is being given to prosecutors applying the following test: does it appear that there is a real possibility that a prosecutor in the other country may have an interest in prosecuting the case? Such a case would usually have significant links with the other country. What is being considered is basically a three-step approach to decisions on jurisdiction—first, the early exchange of information between the relevant jurisdictions; secondly, prosecutors consulting on cases for the most appropriate jurisdiction and deciding about that; and thirdly, where prosecutors have been unable to reach agreement on jurisdiction, officers of the Attorney-General taking the lead with the aim of resolving it. The United Kingdom is also providing, as is always the case, detailed guidance to our prosecutors. That is the role that my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General has discharged, and one that his predecessors in title have discharged before him. It is envisaged that talks with the United States will be completed very soon. These are practical arrangements about how we work in comity, on a day-to-day basis in a way that makes sense, with our partners. The evidential requirement is another issue which has caused a deal of concern. There probably never will be complete agreement between those who accept that the evidential requirements between the United States and the United Kingdom are now broadly comparable and those who do not. But there is an acceptance that the previous standards were lopsided, even if there is disagreement over the degree. The advice from the prosecutors in both jurisdictions is that the new standards are not identical but are now broadly comparable. When I was in the United States with the Attorney-General, I raised the issue of how the system works. I was assured that the procedure goes something like this. If a state wishes to make an application or an order for extradition, it has to get a federal warrant. To do so, it has to go before the grand jury and satisfy it that there is probable cause. Only if probable cause is satisfied are the American authorities then entitled to make the request to us for a warrant to be exercised on their behalf. Therefore, under the American procedure, the American authorities have to satisfy themselves that probable cause is satisfied. Going the other way, a request from us to them would have to satisfy the same standard of probable cause. In the past when we made a request to them that prima facie evidence should be produced, they declined to accept it from us because they needed only to have established probable cause. That is what their system demanded. In effect, we have a mirror both ways—probable cause out and probable cause back in. I also asked another question: will the evidence that you produce to us be significantly different from the evidence which you will ask us to produce to you in return? The clear answer I received was no. That, certainly in my book, amounts to parity of treatment. The United States is a country with a long-standing and well established constitution which guarantees the rights of individuals facing justice. We have extradited 21 people to the United States without prima facie evidence and without injustice. It cannot be right to damage our international relations with one of our longest-standing allies simply because of a difference in our legal system which we cannot eliminate. This House asked for the Americans to move—they have moved. They are ready to honour their side of the bargain; it is time that we did the same. Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 36 and 85 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)