Vol. 378 No. 2
asked the Minister for Justice the number of warrants which have been sought for the extradition of persons to (a) Britain and (b) Northern Ireland since the coming into effect of the Extradition Amendment Act; the number of persons so extradited; and the number of directives given by the Attorney-General.
11.
asked the Minister for Justice whether the Attorney-General has exercised the functions conferred on him with the implementation of the Extradition (Amendment) Act on 1 December 1987; and the total number of extradition warrants filed by the British authorities since that date.
It is proposed to answer Questions Nos. 3 and 11 together.
The Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987, came into force on 14 December 1987, not on 1 December as suggested in Deputy Kennedy's question and the figures given in this reply relate to the period from December 14.
I am informed by the Attorney General that the position, so far as he is concerned, regarding warrants received by the Garda Commissioner from Great Britain and Northern Ireland since that date, all of which have been furnished to the Attorney General under that Act, is as follows.
In two cases from Britain, involving a total of three warrants, he has informed the British Attorney General of what he will require in order to be in a position to discharge his functions under the new Act. No material concerning the evidence has been supplied in response so far.
In two cases, both from Northern Ireland, involving a total of six warrants, the Attorney General has decided that the warrants which have been furnished do not come within the scope of the 1987 Act. He has so informed the Garda Commissioner and has advised that they are in order for endorsement. In one other case, from Northern Ireland, a total of ten warrants have been received and are under consideration by the Attorney General.
In a further two cases, one from Britain and one from Northern Ireland, involving one warrant each, the warrants were withdrawn by the requesting authorities before consideration of them had been completed (in one case because the person concerned was arrested in Britain and in the other because the Northern Ireland authorities considered that there was a possibility that there might be a flaw in their warrant).
Is it a fact that since this new Act came into effect nobody has been extradited to Britain or Northern Ireland?
With the exception of the particular details that I have given to the Deputy, everything else has been backed. There was a number of warrants backed before the new legislation came into being. It is quite likely that those warrants were executed from that time up to the present. The only hold-up occurred in the cases I have mentioned.
There were two persons, involving a total of three warrants, from the UK and the Attorney General informed the British Attorney General of his requirements there. That has not been sorted out as yet. In two cases from Northern Ireland, involving a total of six warrants, there was no difficulty there because they did not come under the 1987 Act. The commissioner was advised that those two cases were in order. In one case there is a total of ten warrants which have been received and they are under consideration by the Attorney General.
With regard to the two cases from Northern Ireland, why did the Minister say that these did not come under the 1987 Act?
Because sections 44A and 44B of the Extradition Act of 1965 with the insertion of section 2 (1) of the Extradition Act of 1987, provide for specific cases, as the Deputy knows. The Deputy also knows that section 44A applies only to warrants in respect of persons accused of offences. This means that the new procedure has no application to requests where persons have been convicted of offences. The majority of warrants received by the commissioner since 14 December are in respect of persons convicted of offences and therefore are outside the scope of section 44A.
Let me put my original question this way. In view of the information the Minister has helpfully given, that nobody in respect of whom there were charges preferred has been extradited, would the Minister not agree that it is desirable that the extradition process would work reasonably smoothly and that this country could not become in any sense, a haven for people who were fleeing after allegedly committing a crime? Would he not agree that since it is more than two months now since the coming into operation of this legislation, that the technicalities of it should have been sorted out with the British at the very start to ensure that they would be in a position to comply with the requirements of the 1987 Act?
I believe that the British are now about to settle the technicalities as described by Deputy O'Malley. With regard to the first part of his question, the answer is in the negative. Again I should say there are only two cases involving a total of three warrants where a difficulty arises at present. But the Deputy can rest assured that nobody would want to see this country being regarded as a haven for terrorists of any description from anywhere.
In line with what Deputy O'Malley was saying, would the Minister not agree that there is an urgent need for the British Attorney General and our Attorney General to meet to discuss the technicalities of this? I noticed yesterday during the Taoiseach's contribution in winding up the debate that the correspondence is on the file. But in an issue like this surely it would be better if both of them met together with the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland? The Minister will agree that during the course of the debate on the Extradition (Amendment) Bill it was pointed out that the Bill could bring about a situation where an interpretation of the wording could lead to a delay in extradition proceedings.
I think the Deputy would agree that this matter was aired fully and answered fully in the course of the debate yesterday. I believe that in a very short period, a matter of days, efforts will be made by the British side to ensure that they will be able to comply with what is required by us in our legislation to see to it that this extradition process can be effective.
We all agree that procedures are necessary to ensure that this country does not become a haven for terrorists, and I am glad to know the Minister takes a strong view on that. Arising from the discussions yesterday in relation to the role of the Attorneys General, have the Government made a decision that our Attorney General should seek a meeting with his counterpart? Has the Minister in his brief details of the requirements set out by the Irish Attorney General to his counterpart? If he has, perhaps he would inform the House so that we will all have a better understanding of the requirements. I am sure that this information will become public knowledge as soon as there is the first test case on the new Extradition Act.
If the Minister has the information, will he give us the outline of it?
As the Deputy knows, our Attorney General wrote to the British Attorney General in December asking that the necessary steps be got under way as quickly as possible with a view to allowing this new legislation to be effective. The response was not very positive but I now understand that measures are under way to ensure that the matter will be sorted out. It is a matter for the Attorney General to decide what information he requires in order to discharge his functions under sections 44A and 44B, and section 44B of the Act provides specifically that a direction shall be given unless the Attorney General "having considered such information as he deems appropriate is of the required opinion." Therefore, the Attorney General will decide on that.
The Taoiseach stated yesterday that the Irish Attorney General was informed by the British Attorney General that he would not provide any material relating to the evidence forming the basis for the British prosecuting authority's intention to prosecute? Is the Minister now stating that he has been informed in the last few days by the British Attorney General or the British Government that they have changed their view on this?
Again I do not want to say any more than I have already said, that is, that I understand that steps are now under way to see to it that our Attorney General's requirements under this Act will be met.
In the context of effective implementation of the legislation, can the Minister tell us when the warrants in respect of the two cases from the United Kingdom involving three warrants were received here by the Garda authorities or by the Attorney General for execution and when the Attorney General wrote back in each of the cases to the British Attorney General setting out the material he required?
I do not have that information.
Can the Minister see that the information——
I would suggest that the Deputy might contact the Office of the Attorney General who might be in a position to give him the information.
Surely the Minister would accept that if the House is to be advised about the effective implementation of this legislation a time span is crucial. The time it takes for a warrant to be received and considered by the Attorney General and how quickly his requirements for information are responded to is important. It is not satisfactory for the Minister to say that he does not have the information.
The Deputy should understand that particulars as to information that is being sought and what has been furnished are matters that are within the realm of the Attorney General's statutory functions under the recent legislation. The Deputy must appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to discuss the matter.
The Minister will probably agree that the Act is very vague in regard to the information which our Attorney General is entitled to or which he might require. If this information has been given today, I am sorry to ask the question again. But has the British Attorney General been told by our Attorney General what type of evidence he would require in each particular case?
I understand that the Attorney General was in touch with his opposite number in the United Kingdom letting him know what his requirements were. I further understand that his requirements were not met in relation to the two cases we are talking about. Again I understand that steps are now being undertaken to ensure that there is no misunderstanding between the two sides as to what is required so that this Bill can be implemented.
Would the Minister not agree that in a situation where the British Attorney General has refused to give our Attorney General the information he has sought, the only way of solving that is for the two men to meet rather than getting into a lengthy correspondence that will go on for months or maybe years?
It is no secret that our Attorney General sought a meeting and was not granted that meeting. I understand that he will meet the British Attorney General whenever he gets an opportunity of so doing.
Would our Attorney General not consider saying that if the British Attorney General is not prepared to give the information he wants we can make no progress and ask for a meeting to talk it out?
Again, this is exactly what our Attorney General has done and I hope he will get a very favourable response to that request in the near future.
