requires a prima facie case to be made if it is to extradite someone here, but we do notrequire it to extradite someone there. That is the matter in question.
tand the hon. Gentleman’s point, which has been made several times
in the Chamber and in another place. Hon. Friends and I have answered it in Committeeand at the Dispatch Box. I repeat
I shall do so again later in my speech
that the hon.Gentleman is, frankly, wrong. The United States demands probable cause of us. Wedemand of it information sufficient for a magistrate to issue a warrant for arrest. Thatconstitutes reasonable suspicion. Probable cause and reasonable suspicion have what wecall rough parity. They are as close as it is possible to get, given that no two legal systemsexactly match. We therefore have parity and reciprocity in the evidence required betweenthe United States and us.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con):
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary forgiving way so early in her remarks, but her point needs immediate clarification before shemisleads herself or the House. Does she accept that the 1973 treaty between the
24 Oct 2006 : Column 1390
United States and the United Kingdom required mutual parity, albeit through differentwording? We required a prima facie case and it required reasonable cause. Does sheaccept that the 2003 treaty does not contain parity and reciprocity, and that probablecause is not matched by information? Information is a different legal concept fromprobable cause, which is based on evidence.
I regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not appear to have listenedto what I said. However, let me answer his two points clearly. I do not accept that the1973 treaty delivered parity. There is no parity between a prima facie case and probablecause. I believe that there is rough parity
I repeat that no two legal systems are thesame
between probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Before the Extradition Act2003 was introduced, an imbalance existed but it was the opposite of what ConservativeMembers suggest.
Several hon. Members
I intend to give way to as many hon. Members as possible in the timeavailable.
Mr. Humfrey Malins (Woking) (Con):
The Under-Secretary may know that I sit part-time as a district judge, so I know as well as many our duty to do justice. If a UK citizenis before a court because the Americans are trying to extradite him or her, is not it ourfundamental duty t
o say to the Americans, “You have to establish a prima facie casethrough evidence before we extradite”? Is not anything else a gross dereliction of duty to
our UK citizens?
I disagree. It is our duty to do justice, and our extradition arrangements areabout justice for victims and bringing the perpetrators of crime to justice. The purpose of the 2003 Act and the treaty is to ensure that justice is done in some serious cases