This book examines those aspects of the law of extradition which reveal conflicts between different legal systems and where there is a need for an improvement in procedures, either in the interest of mutual legal assistance or for the better protection of the fugitive. The book starts from the assumption that, unless otherwise stated, the principles applied by domestic courts are of universal applicability. Such a broad generalisation is not guaranteed to be right in every circumstance, but it concentrates the study on extradition law itself, rather than on the various national interpretations of domestic extradition laws. The law is stated in accordance with the materials available at 1 December 1990. Most extradition agreements tend to focus on those matters which form the basis for this book. Throughout the discussion of these matters it will be noticed that there is a tension between extradition law as part of a process of mutual assistance by states in the area of criminal justice, and extradition law as a means of protecting the fugitives' rights and freedoms. Dr Geoff Gilbert is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Law and a member of the Human Rights Centre at the University of Essex. Within the H.C.R., he teaches International Criminal Law on the LL.M. in International Human Rights.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights concludes that the current statutory framework does not provide effective protection for human rights. The rights most often relevant to extradition are: prohibition of torture; fair trial; liberty and security; private and family life; and prohibition of discrimination. The Committee calls on the Government to spell out detailed safeguards in the statutory framework. Parliament should be asked to commence the "most appropriate forum" safeguard in the Police and Criminal Justice Act 2006 and that a requirement for the requesting country to show a prima facie case or similarly robust evidential threshold should be introduced in extradition cases. The most appropriate forum safeguard would require the judge to consider whether it is in the interests of justice for the individual to be tried in the requesting country - and to refuse the extradition request if it is not. The committee also calls for negotiated changes to the European Arrest Warrant, a review of the provision of legal representation. The committee also concludes that the power of the Secretary of State to refuse extradition to non-EU countries should not be extended. The powers of the judge in an extradition case should instead ensure adequate protection of rights.

The Select Committee on Extradition Law were established in March 2014 to conduct post-legislative scrutiny into the law and practice relating to extradition, in particular the Extradition Act 2003, the report Extradition: UK Law And Practice (HL 126) is the result of their findings. The Extradition Act 2003 was introduced to modernize and streamline the UK's extradition procedures. It did this by bringing into UK law the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) scheme (a fast-tracked process of surrender between EU Member States), and by simplifying the process of extradition to other countries. Since its introduction, the 2003 Act has been the focus of much controversy, with critics arguing that it did not provide the necessary safeguards to prevent injustice. The Committee's findings suggest that although there are aspects of the law and practice which are of concern, there is no systemic problem with the UK's extradition regime.

On 24th December 2020, just one week before the end of the transition period, the EU and UK brokered an agreement governing extradition between the UK and the Member States. That agreement is contained in Part 3 of the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement ('the TCA'), at Title VII, and applies to those who are arrested after 2300 on 31st December 2020. The TCA substantially replicates the Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA, but this is not to say that extradition to EU Member States will continue almost unchanged. There are some important and potentially radical differences between the wording of the two schemes, and the potential impact of the change in legal context should not be underestimated. In 'A Practical Guide to Extradition Law Post-Brexit', the members of Temple Garden Chambers' extradition team provide a guide to the operation of Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 ('the 2003 Act') in this new era, highlighting areas of likely continuity and change. They also introduce practitioners to cases under Part 2 of the 2003 Act, giving a clear and concise explanation of the procedural and substantive differences between the two regimes. "This book is timely, and practitioners will find it of great use ... it is well-researched, well-expressed, easy to follow and practical in its focus ... I commend it to all lawyers in the field." - from the Foreword by the Right Honourable Sir Stephen Irwin Editor Myles Grandison specialises in public law with a particular focus on extradition; representing requested persons, judicial authorities and the National Crime Agency. Myles also advises on issues such as prisoner transfer, freezing of assets across jurisdictions and mutual legal assistance. Contributors Kathryn Howarth practises in both public law and public international law. She has developed her expertise in extradition over the last decade and has been instructed in numerous leading cases. Daniel Sternberg is a specialist extradition, immigration and public law practitioner and a Deputy District Judge (Magistrates' Courts). He is ranked in Band 1 as a leading junior in the field of extradition by Chambers and Partners. Benjamin Seifert practises in extradition and public law. He appears at Westminster Magistrates' Court, the High Court and in the Supreme Court in extradition cases representing both requesting states and requested persons. His practice also includes inquests, inquiries and immigration law. Émilie Pottle is an extradition, public and international law specialist. She is recommended in the directories across multiple practice areas and has appeared before the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and Divisional Court. Saoirse Townshend has a dynamic court and advisory practice specialising in extradition and public law. Saoirse is instructed alone and is led in complex and novel points of law before the Supreme Court and the Divisional Court. Emily Wilsdon practises in public and private law. She has particular expertise in inquests and inquiries, public law (including unlawful detention claims, human rights, immigration and asylum, trafficking, and national security) and extradition. Juliet Wells qualified in October 2018 and is building a busy practice in extradition and public international law. She represents requested persons in extradition proceedings before Westminster Magistrates' Court and the High Court, both led and as sole counsel.

This book contains an exhaustive analysis of extradition law and offers innovative perspectives thereon. It departs from both the classic paradigm and the mutual recognition approach, producing a new model based on respect for other States’ criminal justice idiosyncrasies.

The law relating to the extradition of fugitive offenders, whether convicted or merely accused of offences in countries outside the UK, is a highly technical and somewhat esoteric area of jurisdiction. In England and Wales, such cases are heard in the first instance at Bow Streets Magistrates' Court in London. Since the new Extradition Act 1989 came into effect, there have been many changes in the law and practice relating to extradition. The author offers a working manual encompassing the legal as well as the more practical aspects of the work, in this looseleaf format.