asked the Minister for Justice if he will make a statement on the operation of the procedures under the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987, including the number of applications received from the United Kingdom for extradition warrants; the number accepted; the number rejected; the numbers of persons extradited; and the procudures established under this Act.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Extradition Warrants.
32.
The Attorney General has made arrangements with the British Arrorney General under which the latter furnishes him, in each case, with the information which he deems appropriate for the purpose of forming the opinion required of him by the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987. I understand that this procedure is working satisfactorily.
With regard to the statistics sought in the Deputy's question, the position is that the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987, made no change in regard to the manner in which warrants are submitted to the Garda Commissioner by the British and Northern Ireland authorities. Warrants continued to be furnished in accordance with the provisions of section 43 of the Extradition Act, 1965. The figures I am about to give include all warrants received from Britain and Northern Ireland in the period since 14 December 1987 — the date on which the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987, came into force.
Warrants in respect of ten persons have been received by the Garda Commissioner. The position in regard to these ten applications is as follows: In six cases, involving a total of 21 warrants, warrants have been endorsed by the Commissioner for execution. Those warrants were executed in one case and the application for extradition was refused in the District Court. That decision is now under appeal. In three cases, involving three warrants, the requesting authorities have withdrawn the warrants. In the remaining case, involving one warrant, the application is under consideration. No warrants have been rejected and no persons have been extradited in respect of the warrants received.
Would the Minister not agree that it is a fair implication, from what he said, that the operation of the extradition procedures is not working satisfactorily, that no person has been extradited, notwithstanding the requests received since 14 December 1987 and that something needs to be done about that? Would the Minister not agree also that the level of identification evidence required by the courts has to be clarified by this House and that there is an urgent need to do that? May I ask the Minister if the Government have any intention of giving guidelines to the court, which ever court it might be?
My reply to the first part of the Deputy's question is that I totally disagree with him and that he is wrong to assume, because of the reply I gave to him, that the operation of extradition proceedings is not working. That is not so.
Nobody has beene extradited.
I made it quite clear to the Deputy that no warrants have been rejected. With regard to the other question, this is being considered, along with other matters, by the Government. When the Government have reached a decision on the matter the Deputy will be made aware of it in the normal way.