On Thursday 8 February, the House of Lords debates the EU Dwelling Affairs Sub-Committee’s report on the judicial oversight of the European Arrest Warrant following Brexit.

Track record

The European Arrest Warrant (EAW), adopted by the European Union to aid the extradition of men and women among Member States, has been described by the Dwelling Secretary, Rt. Hon. Amber Rudd MP, as an “helpful software that is essential to the supply of helpful judgment on … murderers, rapists and paedophiles”. The Authorities has stated that it is a precedence “to guarantee that we continue to be aspect of the arrangement”. However, this purpose is in stress with the Government’s designs to get rid of the jurisdiction of the Courtroom of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Uk.

The Discussion

The discussion follows the publication of a report by the EU Dwelling Affairs Committee which examines whether or not alternatives to the European Arrest Warrant are possible, and explores the options obtainable for resolving disagreements among the Uk and the EU in the absence of the Courtroom of Justice.

The Committee’s most important conclusions bundled:

  • The Government’s intention is to get rid of the Uk completely from the jurisdiction of the Courtroom of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which performs oversight of the EAW. The Committee heard evidence that it does not appear at all distinct how the Uk will continue to be aspect of EAW preparations if it is outside the house of the European Union, without any  jurisdiction for the CJEU.
  • The most promising avenue for the Authorities to go after could be to observe the precedent set by Norway and Iceland and find a bilateral extradition settlement with the EU that mirrors the EAW’s provisions as much as possible. This arrangement contains provisions for a political dispute resolution system, which would be appropriate with the Government’s desire for a equivalent system as it seeks to change the Courtroom of Justice. However, this settlement has taken decades to negotiate and still has not arrive into influence.
  • The Committee heard evidence that a “phased system of implementation”, which the Authorities states it wants, is probably to suggest accepting, at the very least in aspect, the jurisdiction of the CJEU. However, a transitional arrangement may be tricky to secure if the Uk has left the EU and withdrawn from other EU-associated preparations this kind of as the Constitution of Basic Legal rights, EU info safety legal guidelines, and legal guidelines on EU citizenship, leaving the prospect of a cliff-edge situation.
  • If the Uk fails to secure new extradition preparations with the EU, the ‘default’ result would be to revert to the 1957 Council of Europe Conference on Extradition as the authorized basis for extradition. The Committee heard evidence that  would be nonproductive and inefficient, and not an adequate substitute.

Speakers in the Discussion

The Lord Jay of Ewelme, Chairman of the EU Dwelling Affairs Sub-Committee, will open up the discussion on the report Brexit: judicial oversight of the European Arrest Warrant.

The Lord Younger of Cookham, Lords Spokesperson at the Cabinet Office environment, will answer on behalf of the Authorities.

Other members of the House of Lords who are due to speak in the discussion can be considered on the Speakers’ Listing.