Julian Assange Case Puts Extradition Procedures in Spotlight

Sweden's attempt to extradite Julian Assange has placed a spotlight on the procedure for extradition between European countries – the European Arrest Warrant. The little-known legal instrument has been controversial since it was introduced in 2003 under the Labour government and then home secretary, David Blunkett. It was described as a mechanism for fast-tracking extraditions across Europe for terrorism and serious crime, initially agreed as part of moves to tighten security for cross-border offences just days after the 11 September terrorist attacks.

The EAW speeds up extradition within Europe by providing a uniform set of procedures once a country receives a warrant from another on the continent. The regime replaces the bilateral arrangements that had existed between countries. It also removes the discretion for the secretary of state, who could previously order or refuse extradition.

Only district judges, sitting in a magistrates court, have the power to refuse an extradition request from another European country – on the basis of limited grounds, many of which have been disputed by the Assange legal team.

An extradition can be refused on the basis that the alleged offence is not "extraditable", or that the warrant was flawed. For an EAW request to be granted the warrant must have been issued by the requesting country, must indicate a formal charge and be served on the person accused.

Lawyers often argue that human rights considerations, such as evidence that the defendant would not receive a fair trial in the requesting country, should prevent extradition in individual cases. This argument is being made by Assange's lawyers.

However, judges have relatively limited discretion to block extradition requests from other European countries. Similar constraints exist in respect of extraditions outside the EU, in particular to the US, where a separate treaty entered into in 2003 provides for people in the UK to be extradited there upon the US government's request.

Advocates argue that the long-running case of Gary McKinnon shows that the home secretary should have discretion to block extraditions to the US in exceptional circumstances, such as where a person facing extradition would face an unfair prison sentence, or there is a risk of suicide. The government has so far said it does not have a discretion to block extraditions on this basis.

Other European countries also have bilateral extradition treaties with the US, including Sweden which has an agreement dating back to 1961.

Julian Assange's legal team have claimed the threat of a further extradition from Sweden to the US, should the EAW be granted, is an additional reason to refuse his extradition.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/feb/07/julian-assange-extradition-procedures