Senators may find the length of this motion and the fact that it refers to five different international agreements somewhat confusing. However, let me assure the House that while the subject under discussion, namely, extradition, is of course of the utmost importance in our international relations, the particular aspects of extradition which we are dealing with now are of a technical legal nature.
Today we are dealing with Part II of the Extradition Act, 1965. The motion does not concern extradition to the United Kingdom as that is dealt with under Part III of the Act — a quite separate procedure into which I do not propose to enter today.
As Senators will be aware, the governing legislation in Ireland as regards extradition is the Extradition Act, 1965 which is modelled very closely on the European Convention on Extradition. Indeed, many of the side notes in the Extradition Act, 1965 refer directly to the European Convention on Extradition.
Section 8 (1) of the 1965 Extradition Act provides that where the State is a party to an extradition agreement, whether bilateral or multilateral, with another country the Government may by order apply Part II of that Act to that country.
The effect of applying Part II of the Extradition Act to a country is to enable the extradition in accordance with Irish law of persons to and from Ireland in respect of that country. The basic law governing extradition is contained in that Act. The Act also includes the steps which must be followed when a requesting State applies for the extradition of an individual as well as providing appropriate safeguards for that individual. I would like to draw the attention of the House to a few sections of the Act in this regard.
To take section 10 of the Act first, it provides that extradition shall be granted only in respect of an offence which is punishable under the laws of the requesting country and of the State by imprisonment for a maximum period of at least one year or by a more severe penalty. In other words, minor offences are not extraditable.
Section 9 provides that were a country requests the extradition of a person who is being proceeded against for an offence or the carrying out of a sentence, that person shall, subject to the procedures and safeguards provided by law, be handed over to that country.
While sections 8, 9 and 10 of the 1965 Act establish the basic framework of the State's extradition obligations, section 7 of the Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Act, 1987 governs the procedure for the making of Government extradition orders. It stipulates that the Dáil and the Seanad shall pass motions approving the terms of a draft order before the Government makes such an order. This procedure has been in operation since 1987 and gives both Houses of the Oireachtas an opportunity to keep abreast of new developments in regard to the extradition undertakings of the State.
As Senators will be aware, there have been many occasions since 1965 when Part II of the Extradition Act, 1965 has been applied to various countries. This has arisen in relation to countries which are parties to the European Convention. It has also arisen as a result of the State becoming a party to other international agreements which include provisions regarding prosecution or extradition of alleged offenders.
As I have said already, whilst the minutiae of the application of Part II of the Extradition Act, 1965 to various countries may be relatively routine, the subject matter itself is one of the greatest importance for the international role of the State in the fight against crime. The international agreements, the subject of the draft order, deal with major areas of crime and contain extradition provisions relating to those areas. The first of these, the European Convention on Extradition, is important because it provides a framework for extradition. It was drawn up under the auspices of the Council of Europe and is designed to introduce certain uniform rules on extradition between the states parties to the convention. The convention imposes an obligation on the State, when requested by another state party, to extradite all persons against whom the requesting state is proceeding for an offence which carries a maximum penalty of one year's imprisonment or more.
While the European Convention deals with a wide range of offences depending on the penalty which they attract, the other four conventions deal with specific crimes. For example, the Hague Convention deals with international measures for the prosecution of alleged offenders in relation to hijacking. The Montreal Convention seeks to provide an international regime to deal with acts of violence against civil aviation no matter where they occur, for example, an attack against a pilot or the placing of a bomb on board a plane. The Montreal Protocol deals with another important aspect of the safety of travel and civil aviation and concerns the suppression of unlawful acts of violence at airports. On a separate topic, the Vienna Convention deals with measures to ensure the physical protection of nuclear materials. In particular, the convention deals with the prevention of terrorism involving nuclear materials.
There are two methods by which, through our legal system, we can join in the international effort to combat crime: prosecution or extradition. At a time of such ease of mobility internationally the apprehension and conviction of criminals becomes a global concern which cannot always be met by prosecution within the State. I need only mention the difficulty in trying to collect evidence and ensure the attendance of witnesses concerning a crime that was committed thousands of miles from here. In such cases, it makes more sense to extradite a suspect to face trial in the courts of the country which has the most tangible link with the crime. That country is in a better position to prosecute the alleged offender for that particular crime. In such cases, attempts to prosecute in this jurisdiction could prove unsatisfactory. Of course, the option to prosecute before our courts is still available even when extradition is permitted and it might very well be the appropriate course in a particular instance. However, in many cases, extradition is the only realistic course of action and provision should, therefore, be made for it.
Extradition is recognised as a vital tool in the fight against crime and an important weapon in the fight against terrorism. Those governments and parliaments, which are determined to ensure that their territories are not used as safe havens within which criminals and terrorists may evade justice, acknowledge the importance of effective and wide-ranging extradition arrangements. It would be very unsatisfactory if the mere movement of alleged offenders from one jurisdiction to another were to give them refuge from the legal process and the administration of justice. The objective of these conventions and this protocol is to increase co-operation between the contracting parties in their efforts to bring criminals and terrorists to justice.
These conventions also provide, and it is a most important point, the conditions under which extradition may take place. These conditions include the procedures which must be observed and the safeguards available to an individual before a requested state hands over any person sought to the requesting state. Any individual facing extradition proceedings before our courts will be entitled to all the rights and protections guaranteed under the Constitution, under our legislation and in particular under the Extradition Acts.
Having referred to the European Convention on Extradition and extradition in general, I turn my attention now to the other four international agreements dealt with in this draft order. All of them include provisions concerning extradition. These provisions are amongst the most important provisions in these Conventions if they are to be truly effective and it is in the interest of the State that effect should be given to them. Under these four agreements, where an alleged offender is found in the territory of a contracting state, such a state is obliged to submit the alleged offender to its competent authorities for prosecution or extradition. Where no extradition treaty exists with other contracting parties then these Conventions provide that the Conventions may be used as the legal basis for extradition in relation to the offences specified therein.
This House most recently approved the terms of draft orders applying Part II of the Extradition Act, 1965 in relation to the European Convention, the Hague Convention and the Montreal Convention, on 14 December 1988. Many Senators will, therefore, be familiar with these Conventions. The orders subsequently made by the Government came into effect on 13 January 1989. It is now necessary to update the list of participating countries and to include the two new Conventions in the order currently before this House. The present order, therefore, consolidates in one single extradition order all the multilateral extradition obligations of the State to date. I assure this House that the lists of countries, parties to all the Conventions, will be brought right up to date before the order is actually made by the Government.
Ireland is not yet a party to either the Montreal Protocol or the Vienna Convention. It is intended that the State should ratify both the Protocol and the Convention as soon as possible. To do this, the State should be in a position to give effect to the extradition provisions under these two international instruments.
The Montreal Protocol is concerned with the suppression of unlawful acts of violence at airports. The Protocol will be read as one instrument with the 1971 Montreal Convention by the states parties to both agreements.
The Vienna Convention deals with measurs to ensure the physical protection of nuclear materials. The Convention is concerned with the prevention of terrorism involving nuclear materials. It is intended that all twelve member states of the European Community will ratify the Convention at the same time. The making of this order by the Government will enable the State to meet the additional extradition provisions contained in the Protocol and the Vienna Convention.
Finally, I stress that extradition is essentially a legal matter concerned with the administration of justice and the enforcement of the rule of law amongst nations. Giving effect to extradition arrangements is an example of civilised behaviour according to the law of nations. Ireland has always supported efforts to develop and strengthen the international legal order; our business today should be seen in that light. In order to fulfil our international obligations, in order to support the rule of law and the administration of justice amongst nations, I commend this motion to the House.
