text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Police and Justice Bill - extradition
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Those voting Content carried <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/glossary/?gl=114">amendments</a> (despite the fact that Commons had previously rejected them) that would have given scope for an independent judge to rule on whether a defendant should be tried in Britain instead of being extradited. This would have been implemented through Schedule 14 of the Police and Justice Bill (<a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/104/06104.132-138.html#j391s">here</a>) which, in turn, would have amended the conditions of the <a href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030041_en_1">Extradition Act 2003</a>.</p>
  
  <p>In spite of the fact that the 2003 Extradition Treaty had now been ratified by the United States and there was now a greater degree of reciprocity in extradition proceedings, those voting Content still argued that the proceedings were not reciprocal.</p>
  
  <p>Charter barrister Ben Cooper writes in the <a href="http://www.charterchambers.com/CharterNews/1AB3EE4/Extradition_Law_Update.aspx">London Advocate, Number 42, September 2007</a> that: </p>
  <blockquote>The Criminal Bar Association, in conjunction with Justice, Liberty and the CBI, lobbied Parliament in November 2006 to introduce a forum amendment to the Extradition Act. However, despite a Lords' majority in favour, the government resisted its introduction. The amendment would have permitted an independent judge to decide the appropriate forum for trial where a case could be tried in either the US or the UK. This would have helped the CPS out of the difficulty that they face in acting for the USA while simultaneously considering the merits of a domestic prosecution. </blockquote>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  