Police and Justice Bill

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, was too quick for me, rising before I could respond to the noble Baroness's final observation about our wanting the treaty. We want the treaty, but subject to the forum amendment. We do not understand why the forum amendment was granted to the Irish but not to us. There is, it now appears, one simple reason: the Irish asked for it; we did not. The Government do not really want the judges to have the power to determine; they want the prosecutors to have the power to determine forum. That has always been wholly unacceptable to us and, thus, the treaty is wholly unacceptable to us without that forum provision. On Question, Motion agreed to. 81: Schedule 14, page 134, line 3, at end insert- ““(j)forum.””;”” The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason- 81A: Because the Lords Amendment, taken with Lords Amendments Nos. 82 and 83, could cause the United Kingdom to be in breach of existing international agreements and would unduly restrict its ability to enter into further ones. The Lords insist on their Amendment No. 81 for the following Reason- 81B: Because it is appropriate that judges should have discretion over requests for extradition in the manner proposed. 82: Page 134, line 5, leave out ““19A”””” and insert ““19B”””” The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason- 82A: Because the Lords Amendment, taken with Lords Amendments Nos. 81 and 83, could cause the United Kingdom to be in breach of existing international agreements and would unduly restrict its ability to enter into further ones. The Lords insist on their Amendment No. 82 for the following Reason- 82B: Because it is appropriate that judges should have discretion over requests for extradition in the manner proposed. 83: Page 134, line 23, at end insert- ““19BForum (1) If the conduct disclosed by the request was committed partly in the United Kingdom, the judge shall not order the extradition of the person unless it appears in the light of allthe circumstances that it would be in the interests of justice that the person should be tried in the category 1 territory. (2)In deciding whether extradition is in the interests of justice, the judge shall take into account whether the competent United Kingdom authorities have decided to refrain from prosecuting the person whose surrender is sought for the conduct constituting the offence for which extradition is requested.”””” The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason- 83A: Because the Lords Amendment, taken with Lords Amendments Nos. 81 and 82, could cause the United Kingdom to be in breach of existing international agreements and would unduly restrict its ability to enter into further ones. The Lords insist on their Amendment No. 83 for the following Reason- 83B: Because it is appropriate that judges should have discretion over requests for extradition in the manner proposed. 84: Page 142, line 5, at end insert- ““Bars to extradition (1) Section 79 (bars to extradition) is amended as follows. (2) After paragraph (d) of subsection (1) there is inserted- ““(e)forum.”” (3) In subsection (2), for ““83”” there is substituted ““83A””. (4) After section 83 there is inserted- ““83AForum (1)If the conduct disclosed by the request was committed partly in the United Kingdom, the judge shall not order the extradition of the person unless it appears in the light of allthe circumstances that it would be in the interests of justice that the person should be tried in the category 2 territory. (2)In deciding whether extradition is in the interests of justice, the judge shall take into account whether the competent United Kingdom authorities have decided to refrain from prosecuting the person whose surrender is sought for the conduct constituting the offence for which extradition is requested.”””” The Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason- 84A: Because the Lords Amendment could cause the United Kingdom to be in breach of existing international agreements and would unduly restrict its ability to enter into further ones. The Lords insist on their Amendment No. 84 for the following Reason- 84B: Because it is appropriate that judges should have discretion over requests for extradition in the manner proposed. The Commons insist on their disagreement to Lords Amendments Nos. 81 to 84 but propose Amendments Nos. 84C and 84D in lieu- 84C: Page 134, line 44, at end insert- ““Restriction on extradition in cases where trial in United Kingdom more appropriate 3A (1) In section 11 (bars to extradition)- (a) at the end of subsection (1) there is inserted- ““(j)forum.””; (b) in subsection (2), for the words from ““12”” to ““apply”” there is substituted ““12 to 19B apply””. (2) After section 19A (inserted by paragraph 3 above) there is inserted- ““19BForum (1)A person’s extradition to a category 1 territory (““the requesting territory””) is barred by reason of forum if (and only if) it appears that- (a)a significant part of the conduct alleged to constitute the extradition offence is conduct in the United Kingdom, and (b)in view of that and all the other circumstances, it would not be in the interests of justice for the person to be tried for the offence in the requesting territory. (2)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) the judge must take into account whether the relevant prosecution authorities in the United Kingdom have decided not to take proceedings against the person in respect of the conduct in question. (3)This section does not apply if the person is alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of the extradition offence.”” 3B (1) In section 79 (bars to extradition)- (a) at the end of subsection (1) there is inserted- ““(e)forum.””; (b) in subsection (2), for ““Sections 80 to 83”” there is substituted ““Sections 80 to 83A””. (2) After section 83 there is inserted- ““83AForum (1)A person’s extradition to a category 2 territory (““the requesting territory””) is barred by reason of forum if (and only if) it appears that- (a)a significant part of the conduct alleged to constitute the extradition offence is conduct in the United Kingdom, and (b)in view of that and all the other circumstances, it would not be in the interests of justice for the person to be tried for the offence in the requesting territory. (2)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) the judge must take into account whether the relevant prosecution authorities in the United Kingdom have decided not to take proceedings against the person in respect of the conduct in question. (3)This section does not apply if the person is alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of the extradition offence.”” 3C (1) An order bringing paragraph 3A or 3B into force is not to be made within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed. (2) If after the end of that period a resolution is made by each House of Parliament that paragraphs 3A and 3B (or either of them) should come into force, the Secretary of State shall make an order under section 51 bringing the paragraphs (or paragraph) into force. (3) An order made by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) must bring the provisions in question into force no later than one month after the day on which the resolutions referred to in that sub-paragraph are made or, if they are made on different days, the day on which the later resolution is made.”” 84D: Page 39, line 1, at end insert- ““( ) paragraph 3C of Schedule 14;””