Question to the Home Office:

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what estimate she has made of the average time in each of the other EU Member States between a decision to try a British national who is wanted for extradition or has been extradited for the alleged offence that is the subject of that decision and the trial for that alleged offence (a) commencing and (b) concluding.

The reforms this Government made to the Arrest Warrant in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 address the concerns of Parliament and others regarding lengthy pre-trial detention in other Member States following surrender using the Arrest Warrant (such as in the case of Andrew Symeou).

The Home Secretary directly acknowledged those concerns in her statement to Parliament of 16 October 2012 when she said the "Arrest Warrant has had some success in streamlining the extradition process within the EU, but there have also been problems there are issues around the lengthy pre-trial detention of some British citizens overseas." (Official Report, Col 164, 16 October 2012).

Section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003, which was introduced by the 2014 Act, was developed with those concerns and the case of Andrew Symeou in mind.

This is witnessed by what the Home Secretary said to Parliament on 9 July 2013: "The change that I am introducing would have allowed Andrew Symeou to raise, in his extradition hearing, the issue of whether a decision to charge him and a decision to try him had been taken. It would likely have prevented his extradition at the stage he was surrendered and, quite possibly, altogether." (Official Report, Col 177, 9 July 2013)

The Government also looked closely at the manner in which Ireland had dealt with the issue of lengthily pre-trial detention, considering their ‘charge and try’ provision and the extent to which it has had an impact on Arrest Warrant cases (for instance, as shown by the judgment in Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v Bailey (21 March 2012).

In framing the section, the Government also recognised that the legal systems of some other Member States (e.g. Sweden) require that the person be present in the jurisdiction in order for the decisions to charge and try to be taken. Full consideration was given to this position, with section 12A being clear that in cases where the decisions have not been taken, the person’s absence from the issuing State must be the sole reason for that failure if extradition is to take place. In all cases, if the issuing State is not trial-ready then extradition cannot take place.