Vol. 481 No. 7
17 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the countries in Europe and in South, Central and North America with whom Ireland has extradition treaties; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17064/97]
80 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the proposals, if any, he has to secure extra extradition agreements with countries with which Ireland does not, so far, have agreements; and the countries with which Ireland currently has such agreements. [14613/97)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 17 and 80 together.
The information sought by the Deputies is as follows. Ireland's extradition arrangements with Britain and Northern Ireland are governed by the simplified extradition procedures set out in Part III of the Extradition Act, 1965, while Ireland's extradition arrangements with countries other than Britain and Northern Ireland are governed by Part II of the Extradition Act, 1965.
In addition, Ireland is a party to the 1957 European Convention on Extradition and to a number of international conventions mainly in the aviation field which provide for extradition for the specific offences comprehended by those conventions. If the Deputies require further information in relation to them, I shall be happy to supply it.
Apart from our arrangements with Britain and Northern Ireland under Part III, an order was made applying Part II of the 1965 Extradition Act to the following countries party to the European Extradition Convention: Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.
With regard to countries not party to the European Convention, orders have also been made applying Part II of the 1965 Act to the USA and Australia following the negotiation of bilateral extradition treaties with those countries.
The Minister recently approved an amended draft of an extradition treaty with Canada which has been submitted to the Canadian authorities. The Minister has also conveyed his approval of the opening of negotiations with the Republic of
South Africa on a draft extradition treaty between our two countries.
A new draft order to apply Part II of the 1965 Act to a number of additional European countries, which have become parties to the 1957 European Convention, is being prepared at present by the Department of Foreign Affairs. The countries concerned are Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
Two new EU conventions were concluded recently in order to facilitate and improve, as between member states of the European Union, the extradition arrangements provided for in the 1957 European Convention on Extradition. The first of these, the EU Convention on Simplified Extradition Procedures, was formally adopted by all member states on 10 March 1995. This convention deals with the procedure to be applied where a person consents to extradition. The second convention, the EU convention relating to extradition, was formally adopted by all member states on 27 September 1996. This convention improves and simplifies extradition arrangements between member states. Work on the preparation of the necessary legislation to enable Ireland to ratify these two conventions has begun in the Department. The Minister will bring forward his proposals as part of his extensive legislative programme as quickly as possible.
Events have overtaken the answer to this question since I tabled it some weeks ago. As I pointed out to the Minister in the course of the debate on the Europol Bill, I began to wonder whether we had extradition treaties with any countries. I asked him then why one could read of a litany of Irish criminals, particularly drug barons, in countries such as England and in places like Amsterdam and the Costa del Sol, whose names and whereabouts were known, yet we did not appear to be doing anything about having them extradited. That led me to wonder whether we had extradition treaties with, say, Holland and Spain, fellow member states of the European Union. If we are to resolve our crime and drugs problem does the Minister agree that there remains a large number of people whose extradition we should be seeking?
I would agree. I know Deputy Deasy is genuinely concerned about this subject, having been present during the debate on the Europol Bill when he raised these matters and having passed on his concerns to the Minister. He also raised them separately with the Minister on Committee Stage.
Before extradition is sought a suspect must have been charged with the extradictable offence, convicted of such an offence, or there must be sufficient evidence to justify charging the person with the extradictable offence. This matter has been gone into in great detail since the Deputy raised it in the course of the debate on the Europol Bill.
The decision on whether to proceed with making an extradition request for the purpose of bringing a person before the courts on criminal charges is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions who is independent in the exercise of his functions. My understanding is that among the issues considered by the DPP in any individual case is whether sufficient evidence exists to enable criminal proceedings to proceed should that individual's extradition be secured. The concerns the Deputy raised on Second and Committee Stages and again today have been noted in the Department and certain people are very concerned with regard to his questions.
In view of the Minister of State's reply, will she indicate if there are any measures afoot to initiate extradition treaties between Ireland and New Zealand?
New Zealand has not been mentioned today but I will make inquiries in that regard.
(Mayo): Will the Minister of State clarify if there is a particular problem with Holland, for example, in that the Dutch will not extradite to a country without a guarantee being given that the person being extradited will have their case heard before a jury? That would relate to the Special Criminal Court here and would seem to explain the reason so many terrorists flee to Holland and use it as a safe haven. They cannot be extradited to face charges before the Special Criminal Court.
I will inquire whether any special difficulties exist in this matter; none has been brought to my attention. A case is currently proceeding involving the country to which the Deputy referred. I am not aware of any special difficulties but I will inquire into the matter and get back to the Deputy.
(Mayo): That is a case involving a terrorist offence.
I will get back to the Deputy.
The Minister of State said that prima facie evidence must exist before an extradition can be sought. What would be the criteria for establishing an extradition treaty with a country? Must there be a current case under investigation or could a treaty be established as a type of precautionary measure with a view to future convictions?
No. There are a number of ways in which we develop agreements with other countries. We currently do not have extradition arrangements with Belgium or Portugal but that is because they had not acceded to the l957 European Convention when the last order was made in l989. Both countries are now parties to the l957 convention and the order being prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs will apply Part II of the l965 Act to them. It is not necessary for a case to arise. In the European context a treaty may be established when a country has acceded to the l957 convention.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
