3
alleged US offence into terms which equated to a UK offence so that a court in the UK could decide whether extradition was appropriate. As a result of this, when individuals were extradited from the UK to the US the documentation provided at the time of extradition opened up the possibility of challenge to the continuation of proceedings, given that it was not always entirely clear that the basis on which extradition had taken place was entirely on all fours with the basis of the original request.
21. In a brief discussion, a number of suggestions were made as to possible means of overcoming this difficulty. The US suggested that a possible solution might be for the UK to provide a separate note, at the time of the extradition of any given individual, confirming that it would be appropriate for proceedings to go ahead in the US on the basis of any or all of the charges initially envisaged. However, this raised significant problems for the UK. On the other hand, there might be merit in pursuing the suggestion that, when an individual was eventually extradited from the UK to the US, the UK authorities might at the same time provide a note indicating any specific charges among those originally listed in the request which, if pursued, would cause concern in the light of the basis on which the UK court had agreed to extradition. The UK representatives agreed to consider further as a matter of priority whether a solution to this difficulty could be devised. It was agreed that this might be pursued in separate correspondence, and that there was no need to wait for the next round of extradition talks to take place if it were possible for the problem to be resolved separately before then.
Any Other Business
22.
In the discussions which had taken place in April, the US representatives had undertaken to produce a paper on the effect of the statute of limitations in immigration cases. Mr Harris circulated a copy of a letter from Ms Gunn to Mrs Olsen at the CPS (copy attached as Annex C) which in the US view set out the position fully. Ms Candler distributed copies of a district court judgement in the case of Barr (copy attached as Annex D), which contained a definition of "probable cause".
Conclusion
23. Mr Surena said that he thought the talks which had taken place had been very useful. The US side were grateful to have been provided with copies of the new UK Extradition Act 1989,