I move amendment No. 1:
In page 18, lines 20 and 21, to delete "if the Court is satisfied that" and substitute the following:
"if the Court is satisfied that no injustice would be caused to the person even if".
This amends section 24 of the Bill which substitutes the text of section 45C of the 2003 Act. Section 45C provides that surrender shall not be refused on the grounds of a technical flaw in an application provided that this would not cause an injustice to the requested person. In an amendment on Committee Stage I further strengthened the protection for the requested person where this provision is applied. The revised text of paragraph (b) now provides that, where there is a variance between any document grounding an application and the evidence adduced on the part of the applicant at the hearing of the application, the court cannot apply the provision unless it is satisfied that such variance is explained by the evidence. However, owing to an unfortunate drafting error, the important limitation that the provision may only be applied if this would not cause an injustice to the requested person was omitted from the amendment. Amendment No. 1 rectifies the position by explicitly providing that the provision may only be applied where the court is satisfied that no injustice would be caused to the requested person. This is obviously of benefit to the requested person by ensuring an additional protection is present.