Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party)

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. I am surprised we are discussing the implementation of a procedure that, as Deputy O'Brien said, has been identified as controversial and is under the spotlight, with repeated demands for the European arrest warrant, EAW, system, as it currently operates, to be reformed. In that context, to seek to expand the system to unspecified countries sets a dangerous precedent to which I strongly object. The aim of the Bill, in essence, is to expand the geographical scope of this controversial, no-questions-asked, system of extradition which currently operates between EU countries. It was obviously introduced in response to the events of 11 September 2001. The reality is that the procedure has removed political discretion on extradition decisions and also many of the legal barriers that existed. If one country demands an extradition under this procedure, another country must more or less grant it.

I was in contact with the Irish Council for Civil Liberties today on the matter. On foot of that it contacted its colleagues in Fair Trials International, a well-respected human rights charity, as the Minister is well aware, which provides assistance to people who have been arrested in another country and who fight to campaign and reform in cases of cross-border injustice. Fair Trials International issued a press release today to express its concerns on the fast-tracking of extraditions being applied to countries outside the European Union. Its chief executive stated:

People should not be torn from their homes and families and shipped off to foreign prisons without a proper judicial process. Even within the EU, no-questions-asked extradition has resulted in serious cases of injustice. It would be a huge mistake to expand these flawed arrangements beyond Europe.

Despite this, that is what the Minister proposes with the Bill. The organisation has worked with victims of abuse under the existing European arrest warrant. It highlights many instances of people who have been imprisoned in other countries awaiting trial and identifies the fact there is a growing recognition throughout Europe that the arrest warrant is in need of reform. It does not make sense that we are expanding the system to other countries. That does not add up. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties said today it shares the concerns expressed by Fair Trials International. That is something we must take on board in considering the legislation.

Given the intention is to expand the legislation to jurisdictions outside the European Union, we can only be guided by what has happened under the legislation to date. Fair Trials International compiled a major report last year based on its analysis of the European arrest warrant seven years after its introduction. It has argued the case for reform. The European Commission itself issued a report expressing concern about the way in which the European arrest warrant was being used across Europe and highlighted the disproportionate use of arrest warrants in minor cases. That is no wonder when one examines some of the case studies that have been highlighted under the use of the procedure.

Deputy O'Brien referred to the case of a Polish schoolteacher, but there are other examples of how the arrest warrant we are seeking to extend has operated. A young man from England who is referred to as Patrick Connor - that is not his real name - was arrested in Spain with two friends in connection with counterfeit euro. He had no counterfeit euro on him and he had no idea that his friends did or how some ended up in the apartment in which they were staying. The amount of money in question was €100 in two €50 notes. Patrick and his friends were arrested, released and returned to the UK. Four years later he was arrested on foot of a European arrest warrant and extradited back to Spain. He was held in a maximum security prison in Madrid and faced the prospect of a two year wait for pre-trial detention. He decided to plead guilty. He spent nine weeks in prison before coming home to finish his studies with his life blighted by a criminal record.

Many similar cases have been highlighted. I will not go through them all but they have been plentiful. A 40 year old British secretary was arrested on foot of one such warrant in 2008 in connection with an arrest in Portugal in 1996 – 12 years earlier – in regard to a partner's use of counterfeit money while on holidays, again worth less than €100. Those are examples of the type of cases for which the warrant has been used or, more appropriately, abused.

It has also been pointed out that issues arise in extradition cases dealt with in this country. In the case of Sean Garland, for example, if the arrest warrant had been made on foot of a European arrest warrant within the EU instead of an extradition warrant from the United States, then under the terms of the Bill he would have been handed over with no questions asked. Given the controversy attached to the case in any event, the large cross-party support for Mr. Garland and the serious civil liberties issues that were highlighted, the fact that he could have been caught in the net had the legislation been in place shows the flaws that exist in the process. We must take those points on board.

I note the Minister has said he will introduce changes on Committee Stage, but that is not enough. I seek a commitment from him that when the Bill is considered on Committee Stage, organisations such as the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, Fair Trials International and other human rights organisations would be invited to make submissions before we would consider transposing and extending the legislation. Deputy O'Brien alluded to a number of important points in terms of the reforms that must be addressed before there could be any question of extending the legislation to other jurisdictions in which we have no guarantee of the standards that exist. Some of the cases highlighted focus on issues such as proportionality. Previously, people have been extradited for minor offences and incidents which took place a long time ago, such as the two I highlighted. It is a lunatic situation that the cases have been brought under the remit of a European arrest warrant.

A report to the President of the European Council has noted that European arrest warrants have even been issued for offences such as the possession of three ecstasy tablets, the theft of two car tyres and, in another incident, the theft of a piglet. Much as I am an animal rights advocate and supporter, that is a little excessive in anyone's book. There must be a discussion at national level and European level on the proportionate use of the European arrest warrant before we seek to expand it to other jurisdictions.

We must examine the procedure whereby when a state fails in its application for extradition, there has been a tendency for it to reissue applications long after the event. There must be some type of in-built mechanism to prevent states from seeking time and again to extradite the same person when an adjudication has been made that it should not take place. In other instances we have seen cases of other means being used to try to get a person extradited. We must also examine the risk involved to a person whose extradition has been sought if he or she goes on holidays to a jurisdiction where he or she could be exposed to the chance of being extradited more easily. These are important civil liberties issues which are not addressed in any way but are exposed under the existing arrangement.

It has been pointed out that there is no guarantee of legal representation in extradition cases for people in this country or in the country to where the extradition is sought. There must be an in-built mechanism in the legislation in that regard. The necessity to seek further information or proof is crucial. Nobody would be put on trial in this country in the absence of a proper arrest warrant, proper procedure and evidence. All of those are requirements in law and natural justice before a person would be brought to trial, but they are not required under the European arrest warrant procedures. If a country asks, we can extradite a person. We must ask where and on what basis a person is being extradited. We must examine the process. We can pinpoint examples that might seem far-fetched but there have been cases where a person has been taken from one country to another on ridiculous grounds.

There are no considerations in the Bill for domestic law in the sense that something might be a crime abroad but is not one in this country and that people here would not consider it an offence. I refer, for example, to the crime that exists in Thailand of lèse majesté. Insulting the royal family is a crime there. There have been attempts to extradite people back to Thailand for that reason – luckily, not Irish people. Will it be possible to do so if we extend the provisions of the international arrest warrant? If a woman shows a bit too much flesh sunbathing in a country where it is unlawful to do that, would she face an arrest warrant? Perhaps it would even apply, for example, to the heinous crime of a woman driving a car in countries where that is unlawful. There have been ludicrous applications for extradition based on the existing European arrest warrant within the boundaries of Europe. Extending that to other countries would be very foolish without the necessary safeguards for which many human rights groups throughout Europe have campaigned. Why would one seek to transpose an extension of a measure that is already flawed? I urge the Minister to take these points on board before the Bill proceeds any further.

See this speech in context