The Experts below are selected from a list of 5160 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Arnell Paul - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Julian Assange Extradition: freedom of British media to expose US state secrets is at stake. [Newspaper article]
New Statesman Media Group, 2021Co-Authors: Arnell PaulAbstract:Dr Paul Arnell is expert on Extradition law from Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen – he explains why the Julian Assange Extradition appeal has huge implications for media freedom in the UK
-
The new UK-EU Extradition arrangements.
Sweet and Maxwell, 2021Co-Authors: Arnell Paul, Davies GemmaAbstract:Extradition requests to Scotland under the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) have ended. Existing from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2020 the EAW transformed aspects of Scottish and UK Extradition practice. In its stead is a new set of rules applying between the UK and the EU 27 to persons arrested after 31 December. Those new rules are set out in Title VII of Part III of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), concluded on 24 December 2020. Notably, the terms of the TCA are such that relatively few amendments to the applicable UK law, the Extradition Act 2003 (2003 Act), were necessary. The minimum punishment requirements and the statutory bars to Extradition remain unchanged. This is not to suggest that there not several significant changes to the terms of Extradition between the UK and the EU 27. There are
-
Extradition and mental health: the need for multidisciplinary review and research.
'SAGE Publications', 2021Co-Authors: Arnell Paul, Forrester AndrewAbstract:More than 1000 people are forcibly removed from the UK each year through the process of Extradition, so that they might stand trial or be imprisoned abroad. Over the last 10 years, 115,915 Extradition requests were made using one such mechanism, the European Arrest Warrant, resulting in 15,243 arrests and 10,689 surrenders. A somewhat similar system has now been agreed post Brexit. In an increasing number of these cases, mental-health disorders are put forward in opposition to the process. This is allowed under the law. However, a number of questions necessarily arise in the area. Central to these is whether Extradition law and practice appropriately and fully take these disorders into account, given the specific context. The importance of this hardly needs to be emphasised. Subjection to the criminal justice process within the UK itself is a challenging prospect for those with a mental-health disorder – indeed for all people. The prospect of facing a criminal trial or incarceration in a foreign country apart from family, support systems and familiar medical and mental-health support networks is daunting indeed
-
Extradition and mental health in the spotlight: the case of Julian Assange.
'Wiley', 2021Co-Authors: Arnell Paul, Forrester AndrewAbstract:Approximately 1000 persons are extradited from the UK every year. While this number may lessen on account of Brexit, it is clear that hundreds of individuals will be forcibly removed from the UK, both nationals and non-nationals, to stand trial or be imprisoned abroad. The UK has a duty to take due cognisance of the mental health of requested persons in coming to decisions to extradite. Whilst Julian Assange’s Extradition has been barred on account of his mental health, there is no certainty that that decision will stand. While there is undoubtedly a need for research into the interplay of mental health disorders and Extradition, this may be a time for root and branch reconsideration of the law and related practice itself. Cooperation between relevant mental health professionals in various countries is one such area that could be enhanced. This could add weight to assurances given by the requesting state and may increase the likelihood that they are adhered to. Related to this, consequences in the event of non-compliance could be agreed between countries, including the potential return of the individual in certain circumstances. As Extradition law and practice stand, these important issues are not addressed
-
Extradition Between the UK and Ireland after Brexit – Understanding the past and present to prepare for the future
'SAGE Publications', 2020Co-Authors: Davies Gemma, Arnell PaulAbstract:The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom have a long, close and difficult history. The most recent phase of which dates from 1998 and the conclusion of the Good Friday Agreement. Since 1921, however, there has been unique practice between Ireland and the UK as regards the transfer of accused and convicted persons from one to the other. Indeed, there has been a special and close relationship between the two in that regard; albeit one not without difficulties. In recent times EU Justice and Home Affairs measures and the Good Friday Agreement have supplemented and strengthened the relationship. These include, since January 2004, the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). The EAW has been particularly important in streamlining the Extradition process between the Ireland and the UK. This phase of history and co-operation is coming to an end. The UK's membership of the EU has now ceased, and a transition period during which the UK remains part of the EAW will end on 31st December 2020. The Extradition relationship between the two is therefore facing a considerable challenge. There are several options open to Ireland, the UK and the EU as a replacement. Time, political will and the interests of third states, however, may well stand in the way of the conclusion of an agreement that optimally serves the interests of all parties and criminal justice. This paper considers the origins of Extradition between the UK and Ireland and the alternative methods of Extradition open to the UK and Ireland after Brexit. Consideration is given to the likely operation of a Norway-Iceland style agreement and whether such an agreement will be in place by the end of the transition and, if it was, whether its terms are likely to be sufficient for the needs of Ireland and the UK. The possibility of a bilateral arrangement on Extradition between Ireland and the UK is also explored. Underlying the discussion is the critical point that the future Extradition relationship must retain its ‘special’ characteristics, and therefore maintain the trust and good will that has developed over the years and given rise to an effective Extradition relationship between the two countries. In other words, the lessons of history must be remembered. Table of ContentsIntroductionPart I - The Past, 1921 - 1998 The Context of Ireland-UK Extradition The Origins of the Process 1921 - 1965 Extradition Hindered 1965 - 1998 Part 2 – The Present, 1998 – 2020Peace and Prosperity as the European Union expands The European Arrest Warrant Brexit and the Northern Ireland problemPart 3 – The Future, 2021 - The EAW is not an optionAn EU-UK Multilateral Treaty on the horizon?Alternative models European Convention on Extradition 1957 – the default option Preparation for operation of the 1957 Convention Is a bilateral agreement between the UK and Ireland a possibility? Nordic Arrest Warrant – a way forward for Ireland and the UK?Conclusio
Francis L F Lee - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
solidarity in the anti Extradition bill movement in hong kong
Critical Asian Studies, 2020Co-Authors: Francis L F LeeAbstract:One important aspect of the 2019 Anti-Extradition Bill (Anti-ELAB) movement in Hong Kong is a high degree of solidarity between the movement’s moderate and radical flanks. The solidarity has contri...
Andrew Silver - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
academics join outcry sparked by hong kong s contentious Extradition bill
Nature, 2019Co-Authors: Andrew SilverAbstract:The bill has been suspended but protestors want it withdrawn; researchers say the plan to extradite people to mainland China could stifle academic debate. Demonstrators marching in Hong Kong against an Extradition bill proposed by the government.
Davies Gemma - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The new UK-EU Extradition arrangements.
Sweet and Maxwell, 2021Co-Authors: Arnell Paul, Davies GemmaAbstract:Extradition requests to Scotland under the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) have ended. Existing from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2020 the EAW transformed aspects of Scottish and UK Extradition practice. In its stead is a new set of rules applying between the UK and the EU 27 to persons arrested after 31 December. Those new rules are set out in Title VII of Part III of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), concluded on 24 December 2020. Notably, the terms of the TCA are such that relatively few amendments to the applicable UK law, the Extradition Act 2003 (2003 Act), were necessary. The minimum punishment requirements and the statutory bars to Extradition remain unchanged. This is not to suggest that there not several significant changes to the terms of Extradition between the UK and the EU 27. There are
-
Extradition Between the UK and Ireland after Brexit – Understanding the past and present to prepare for the future
'SAGE Publications', 2020Co-Authors: Davies Gemma, Arnell PaulAbstract:The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom have a long, close and difficult history. The most recent phase of which dates from 1998 and the conclusion of the Good Friday Agreement. Since 1921, however, there has been unique practice between Ireland and the UK as regards the transfer of accused and convicted persons from one to the other. Indeed, there has been a special and close relationship between the two in that regard; albeit one not without difficulties. In recent times EU Justice and Home Affairs measures and the Good Friday Agreement have supplemented and strengthened the relationship. These include, since January 2004, the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). The EAW has been particularly important in streamlining the Extradition process between the Ireland and the UK. This phase of history and co-operation is coming to an end. The UK's membership of the EU has now ceased, and a transition period during which the UK remains part of the EAW will end on 31st December 2020. The Extradition relationship between the two is therefore facing a considerable challenge. There are several options open to Ireland, the UK and the EU as a replacement. Time, political will and the interests of third states, however, may well stand in the way of the conclusion of an agreement that optimally serves the interests of all parties and criminal justice. This paper considers the origins of Extradition between the UK and Ireland and the alternative methods of Extradition open to the UK and Ireland after Brexit. Consideration is given to the likely operation of a Norway-Iceland style agreement and whether such an agreement will be in place by the end of the transition and, if it was, whether its terms are likely to be sufficient for the needs of Ireland and the UK. The possibility of a bilateral arrangement on Extradition between Ireland and the UK is also explored. Underlying the discussion is the critical point that the future Extradition relationship must retain its ‘special’ characteristics, and therefore maintain the trust and good will that has developed over the years and given rise to an effective Extradition relationship between the two countries. In other words, the lessons of history must be remembered. Table of ContentsIntroductionPart I - The Past, 1921 - 1998 The Context of Ireland-UK Extradition The Origins of the Process 1921 - 1965 Extradition Hindered 1965 - 1998 Part 2 – The Present, 1998 – 2020Peace and Prosperity as the European Union expands The European Arrest Warrant Brexit and the Northern Ireland problemPart 3 – The Future, 2021 - The EAW is not an optionAn EU-UK Multilateral Treaty on the horizon?Alternative models European Convention on Extradition 1957 – the default option Preparation for operation of the 1957 Convention Is a bilateral agreement between the UK and Ireland a possibility? Nordic Arrest Warrant – a way forward for Ireland and the UK?Conclusio
-
The Forum Bar in UK Extradition Law: An Unnecessary Failure
'SAGE Publications', 2020Co-Authors: Arnell Paul, Davies GemmaAbstract:A forum bar was introduced into UK Extradition law in October 2013 after several high-profile cases led to calls for its introduction. Those cases, entailing US requests for UK nationals who had committed acts on British soil, gave rise to a media and political uproar. The response to these cases overcame reasoned argument and resulted in the insertion of the forum bar into the Extradition Act 2003 (the 2003 Act). The forum bar was unnecessary and is a failure. It was unnecessary because the human rights bar to Extradition and prosecutorial guidelines and agreements governing concurrent criminal jurisdiction, among other things, addressed the mischief it was enacted to counter. It is a failure because it does not act to ascertain whether the UK, or indeed anywhere, is the most appropriate jurisdiction in which a criminal trial should take place. It does not necessarily lead to a criminal prosecution. The two cases where the bar has been upheld since its introduction highlight its inherent failures. The forum bar was based upon the premises that it is generally appropriate for Extradition hearings to consider a UK prosecution in the context of concurrent jurisdiction and that where the bar has been upheld a UK prosecution would follow. Both are misplaced. They arose from the erroneous belief that it was tenable to transplant the meaning of forum in private international law to Extradition. The repeal of the forum bar is called for. It is not redeemable, at least not without significant and inappropriate changes to fundamental aspects of the UK’s criminal justice systems. The repeal of the bar would reinstate clarity in the area with existing law and practice acting to address forum-related concerns where appropriate. This development would affirm that prosecution decisions in the context of concurrent jurisdiction are rightly taken by the UK’s prosecution services independently and alone
-
Extradition between the UK and Ireland after Brexit: understanding the past and present to prepare for the future.
'SAGE Publications', 2020Co-Authors: Davies Gemma, Arnell PaulAbstract:The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom have a long, close and difficult history. The most recent phase of which dates from 1998 and the conclusion of the Good Friday Agreement. Since 1921, however, there has been unique practice between Ireland and the UK as regards the transfer of accused and convicted persons from one to the other. Indeed, there has been a special and close relationship between the two in that regard; albeit one not without difficulties. In recent times EU Justice and Home Affairs measures and the Good Friday Agreement have supplemented and strengthened the relationship. These include, since January 2004, the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). The EAW has been particularly important in streamlining the Extradition process between the Ireland and the UK. This phase of history and co-operation is coming to an end. The UK’s membership of the EU has now ceased, and a transition period during which the UK remains part of the EAW will end on 31st December 2020. The Extradition relationship between the two is therefore facing a considerable challenge. There are several options open to Ireland, the UK and the EU as a replacement. Time, political will and the interests of third states, however, may well stand in the way of the conclusion of an agreement that optimally serves the interests of all parties and criminal justice. This paper considers the origins of Extradition between the UK and Ireland and the alternative methods of Extradition open to the UK and Ireland after Brexit. Consideration is given to the likely operation of a Norway-Iceland style agreement and whether such an agreement will be in place by the end of the transition and, if it was, whether its terms are likely to be sufficient for the needs of Ireland and the UK. The possibility of a bilateral arrangement on Extradition between Ireland and the UK is also explored. Underlying the discussion is the critical point that the future Extradition relationship must retain its ‘special’ characteristics, and therefore maintain the trust and good will that has developed over the years and given rise to an effective Extradition relationship between the two countries. In other words, the lessons of history must be remembered
-
Extradition between the UK and Ireland is at risk because of Brexit
London School of Economics and Political Science, 2020Co-Authors: Arnell Paul, Davies GemmaAbstract:Extradition between the UK and Ireland after Brexit will be particularly affected by a No-Deal Brexit. In this post, Paul Arnell (Robert Gordon University) and Gemma Davies (Northumbria University) bring a closer understanding of the problems on the horizon and ways of mitigating them
Wai Kai Hou - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
socioeconomic determinants of depression amid the anti Extradition bill protests in hong kong the mediating role of daily routine disruptions
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2020Co-Authors: Francisco T T Lai, Brian J Hall, Li Liang, Sandro Galea, Wai Kai HouAbstract:Background Previous research has suggested a socioeconomic gradient of mental health in the face of potentially traumatic events. Nevertheless, few studies examined the intermediary mechanisms of this gradient. This study tested a hypothesised mediating effect of disruptions to daily routines (eg, eating/sleeping habits) between socioeconomic status (SES) and depression among participants and non-participants of the anti-Extradition bill protests in summer 2019 in Hong Kong. Methods A territory-wide telephone survey was conducted during the movement in the first 3 weeks of July 2019 to collect self-report data from 1112 Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong citizens. Stratified by participation in the anti-Extradition bill protests, logistic regression was conducted to examine the inverse relationship between SES and depression. Subsequently, path analysis was conducted to test the hypothesised indirect effect through daily routine disruptions. Results In total, 581 (52.2%) respondents participated in the anti-Extradition bill protests. Logistic regression showed that higher educational attainment was protective of depression among both participants and non-participants, while the protective effect of household income level HK$40 000–HK$79 999 (compared with Conclusions Daily routine disruptions partially explain the association between low SES and depression, especially among participants of the anti-Extradition bill protests. To improve population mental health, such disruptions should be mitigated.
