Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1994
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1994 (An Act To Amend and Extend the Extradition Acts, 1965 to 1987) was an act passed by the Oireachtas, the national legislature of the Republic of Ireland. The Act restricted the use of the defence of 'political offence' by defendants against extradition.
[edit] Background
The Act came about as the previous legislation, The Extradition Act, 1965, provided that a person should not be extradited which was a political offence or an offence connected with a political offence. The term “political offence” was not defined but there were statutory provisions which excluded certain offences from the scope of the political offence exception. The most relevant of these provisions was contained in the Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Act, 1987, and was updated by this Act.
The 1987 Act came under the scrutiny of the Irish High Court and Irish Supreme Court in the cases of Sloan, Magee and McKee v. Culligan [1991] ILRM 641 and [1992] ILRM 186. The Act was held not to be repugnant to the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court stated that as the Act may impose upon an individual a liability to be delivered out of the jurisdiction for the purposes of standing trial or of serving a sentence, it should be strictly construed. In particular, it was held that in the absence of an unambiguous expression to the contrary, the offence of possession of an automatic firearm with intent to endanger life could be regarded as a political offence. In light of the Supreme Court decision, it is clear that the provisions of the 1987 Act are inadequate and need to be amended.
It became the view of the Irish Government that offences involving violence, offences involving the use or possession of firearms and explosives with intent to endanger life or cause serious injury to property or offences involving drugs should not be regarded as an acceptable form of political activity, particularly where committed in states which have democratically elected governments and which are party to the European Convention on Human Rights.
[edit] Provisions of the Act
It is in the light of this view that the scope of the political offence exception was restricted. The concept of a political offence was not abolished entirely. The effect of the Act, in conjunction with existing legislation, will be that a person who commits an offence involving violence, an offence involving the use or possession of firearms or explosives with criminal intent or an offence involving drugs will be unable to escape extradition on the basis that his or her offence is political. However, where a person engages in political activity against a foreign government without resorting to such offences, it will still be open to that person to seek the benefit of the political offence exception.
There are a number of safeguards in place to ensure that the extradition process will not be abused and the rights of those accused of crimes will be protected. Regardless of the offence charged, extradition may always be refused if there are grounds for believing that the request for extradition was made for the purposes of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of his or her race, religion, nationality or political opinion. This safeguard is set out in section 11 of the Extradition Act, 1965, and section 44 of that Act as amended by section 8 of the Extradition (European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism) Act, 1987.
There are special arrangements with the UK providing for a system of backing of warrants and the Extradition (Amendment) Act, 1987, introduced a number of controls which apply in respect of those arrangements. In particular, UK warrants seeking the return of a person to the UK for the purpose of prosecution there will not be endorsed for execution here unless the Attorney General is satisfied that there is a clear intention to prosecute and such intention is founded on the existence of sufficient evidence. Furthermore, extradition can be refused if by reason of lapse of time it would be unjust, oppressive or invidious to deliver the person to the UK authorities.
