Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I welcome the Minister and as Senator Bradford said he is a regular visitor. I also welcome the Bill. The only note of non-welcome is that the Bill commenced in the Dáil rather than in this House. It is much appreciated that the Minister has commenced many justice Bills in this House and we hope he will continue to do that.

Like Senator van Turnhout I appreciate the Minister's comments on the piecemeal nature of legislation in the area of extradition and European arrest warrant procedures. It is a matter of concern that already there have been three pieces of legislation on this issue. In that regard, I very much welcome the Minister's indication that a comprehensive legislative review is ongoing. I understand he was asked in the Dáil about a timeframe for that review. Is he in a position today to indicate when it is likely to be produced? I accept his point that he did not wish to await its completion before bringing forward this Bill.

The Minister has acknowledged criticism by interested parties, including lawyers, of certain provisions in the Bill. It is important to note that those critiques come out of a genuine concern to ensure the legislation includes adequate safeguards. This is particularly important given that the extension of the 2003 Act on foot of this Bill will be done by ministerial order rather than primary legislation. However, as the Minister observed, there is High Court supervision throughout the process and section 37 of the 2003 Act is not amended by the Bill.

I appreciate the Minister's reassurance as to the countries to which the 2003 Act will not be applicable, including Thailand and Zimbabwe. Will he indicate which countries are likely to be included? It is envisaged that similar agreements to that in place with Norway and Iceland are likely to be concluded by the European Union. I am conscious here of the important proviso that the European arrest warrant procedures will apply only to those countries where an agreement has been made with the Union. I understand that the Bill, once it comes into force, will apply only in respect of Iceland and Norway at this stage. In other words, it will initially allow for surrender procedures to take place only between EU states and Iceland or Norway.

I am also grateful for the Minister's clarification regarding the Tobin judgment, which, as he observed, is a deeply tragic case. We all feel great sympathy for the parents in Hungary who lost their two small children. It is an unbearable thought. However, the decision on 19 June 2012 was the second Supreme Court judgment in the case and it seems there is no further legal process available in this matter.

Like Senator Jillian van Turnhout, I wish to address the other recent decision in this area, namely, the Bailey decision by the Supreme Court on 1 March 2012. Was any consideration given to addressing aspects of that judgment in this Bill? Senator van Turnhout and I have copies of a submission which very usefully points to certain aspects of the judgment which might well be addressed by amending legislation, whether in this Bill or in the comprehensive review to which the Minister referred. On foot of the Bailey decision, the principle of reciprocity was found to preclude surrender where the executing state was in a position to or would have been in a position to arrest and prosecute for the offence but on a different jurisdictional basis. The reference to "different jurisdictional basis" was set out in the judgment as being, under Irish law, the existence of extraterritorial jurisdiction to prosecute an Irish citizen who commits a murder abroad. In contrast, French law was found to allow for the prosecution of a person who murdered an Irish citizen abroad. That difference essentially led to the outcome of the case.

The critique of the judgment suggests that the principle of reciprocity should have been bypassed on foot of the EU framework decision. It is not expressly included in the 2003 Act despite having heretofore been a general principle of diplomatic relations. Has the Supreme Court decision in the Bailey case effectively brought us back to a reciprocity position and, if so, should we now legislate to deal with the outcome? I accept this may not be the appropriate Bill in which to deal with that question, particularly as it is concerned with a much narrower issue. Will the Minister indicate whether it will be dealt with in more detail in the comprehensive review?

On the concept of the European arrest warrant more generally, we have had some very useful academic commentary on developments at EU level in criminal law. Professor Dermot Walsh, for example, has spoken about the origins and development of a European criminal process and the movement towards a more transnational approach to criminal processes. Much of this is to be welcomed given the transnational nature of criminality. As the Minister observed, it is very important that we recognise that just as people are seeking surrender from Ireland, we are equally seeking surrender to Ireland in order to pursue criminal proceedings in this State. There is a mutuality within the European arrest warrant procedure that is sometimes overlooked by its critics. Nevertheless, as Professor Walsh and others have set out, there always must be a concern to ensure adequate safeguards are in place where there is a move towards transnational criminal processes and transnational criminal jurisdiction. We must all remain conscious of that in debating legislation dealing with European-level arrest warrant procedures or procedures more generally. The developments in regard to Europol and Eurojust, for instance, demonstrate the huge changes in recent years at European level in what was always seen in the past as very much a domestic matter of jurisdiction. I welcome the developments at transnational level. They are inevitable given the increasingly transnational nature of crime, but we must always ensure there are adequate safeguards in place.

I welcome the Bill and look forward to supporting it through the House.