No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Internal Cross-Border Policing within the United Kingdom: the High Road or the Low Road to Effective Co-operation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
Extract
ONE of the less vaunted aspects of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 is Part X, entitled “Cross-Border Enforcement”. On closer scrutiny, one quickly discovers that the borders in question are those internal to the distinct legal jurisdictions of the United Kingdom—in other words, the territories of England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. As for “enforcement”, it is apparently the enforcement of the law via police powers and not the enforcement of court judgments which is the concern. As with other, more notorious parts of the Act, three main questions need to be answered in order to reach an understanding of these provisions: what prompted Part X to be passed; how does it seek to attain its objectives; and does it seek to attain its objectives in ways which are effective and appropriate?
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1997
References
1 See generally, Wasik, M. and Taylor, R., Blackstone's Guide to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (London 1995);Google ScholarBewley, F., “Final frontier” (1995) 103 Police Review 27 01 p. 22,Google Scholar “Hot pursuit” (1995) 103 Police Review 19 May p. 18. Parts of the 1994 Act have now been consolidated within the Police Act 1996.
2 See: Home Office Circular No. 27/1987; G. Mason, “The national team” (1993) 101 Police Review 23 April p. 23.
3 Its Annual Report is available at http://www.open.gov.uk/ncis/ncishome.htm. See also Home Affairs Committee, Organised Crime (1994–95 H.C. 18); Home Office, Protecting the Public (Cm. 3190, 1996), chap 3.
4 NCIS also operates a small Scottish/Irish Unit: Annual Report 1994/95 (1995), p. 7.
5 1996–97 HL no. 10. This legislation follows discussion by the Director of NCIS (K. Potter, “Out of the shadows” (1995) 103 Police Review 7 July p. 11) and the subsequent governmental White Paper, Protecting the Public (Cm. 3190, 1996), paras. 3.34, 3.36.
6 S. 14. Now see Police Act 1996, ss. 32–34.
7 White Paper, Police Reform (Cm. 2281, 1993), para. 10.8.
8 See: Loveday, B., “The road to regionalisation” (1990) 6 Policing 639;Google Scholar T. Jones and T. Newburn, “Police authorities and the democratic process” (1995) 11 Policing 46.
9 See: Geysels, F., “Europe from the inside” (1990) 6 PolicingGoogle Scholar 338; McLaughlin, E., “The democratic deficit: European Union and the accountability of the British police” (1992) 32 British Journal of Criminology 473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The Council of Interior and Justice Ministers under the Maastricht framework (see below) has replaced TREVI.
10 See: Schutte, J.J.E., “Schengen” (1991) Common Market Law Review 549;Google ScholarBaauw, P.J., “Extradition and the (additional) Schengen agreements” (1991) 62 Revue International de Droit Penal 528.Google Scholar The full text is available at http://www.privacy.org/pi/intl-orgs/schenegan-agreement.txt.
11 See: House of Lords Select Committee on the EC, Europol (1994–95 H.L. 51); Convention based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on the Establishment of a European Police Office (Cm. 3050, 1995).
12 See: Walker, N., “European integration and European policing” in Anderson, M. and Den Boer, M. (eds.), Policing Across Transnational Boundaries (London 1994);Google ScholarDen Boer, M., “Europe and the art of international police cooperation” in Keefe, D. and Twomey, P.M. (eds.), Legal Issues of the Maastricht Treaty (London 1994);Google ScholarSheptycki, J.W.E., “Transnational policing and the makings of a postmodern state” (1995) 35 British Journal of Criminology 613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 Vercher, A., Terrorism in Europe (Oxford 1992);Google ScholarFijnault, C. (ed). The Internationalization of Police Co-operation in Western Europe (Deventer 1993);Google ScholarJung, H., “Criminal justice—a European perspective” [1993] Criminal Law Review 237;Google ScholarHarding, C. et al. (eds.), Criminal Justice in Europe (Oxford 1994);Google ScholarMarkesinis, B., The Gradual Convergence (Oxford 1994).Google Scholar
14 See also: Home Affairs Committee, Practical Police Co-operation in the European Community (1989–90 H.C. 363); Leigh, L.H. and Zedner, L., A report on the administration of criminal justice in France and Germany (Royal Commission Research Study no.l, HMSO, 1992);Google ScholarCannings, D.M., Policing in Europe Towards 1992 (Devon & Cornwall Constabulary, 1992);Google ScholarBenyon, J., Turnbull, L., Wallis, A., Woodward, R. and Beck, A., Police Co-operation in Europe (Leicester 1993).Google Scholar
15 (1996) paras.2.5, 3.53–58. The full Report is not available to the public, but some of the research data can be obtained from the Greater Manchester Police.
16 Ibid., para.3.
17 McLean, D., International Judicial Assistance (Oxford 1992).Google Scholar
18 Immigration Act 1971, ss. 1(3), 9(4).
19 See: Police Forces Amalgamation Act 1925 (as amended); Breathnach, S., The Irish Police (Dublin 1974);Google ScholarBrewer, J.D. et al. (eds.), The Police, Public Order and the State (Basingstoke 1988), chap. 5.Google Scholar
20 Cmnd. 9657.
21 See especially: Review of the Working of the Conference (Northern Ireland Office, Belfast, 1989).Google Scholar
22 For example, there is a debate as to whether the RUC Code on “Professional Policing Ethics” (1987) was prompted by the Agreement: See: Walker, C., “Police and community in Northern Ireland” (1990) 41 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 105, 138.Google Scholar
23 But see Hillyard, P., “The normalisation of special powers” in Scraton, P., (ed.), Law, Order and the Authoritarian State (Open University Press 1987).Google Scholar
24 Agreements signed in 1563 and 1640 which allowed hot pursuit in certain conditions (known as “hot trods” ) were superseded by the Acts of Union of 1707 which imposed a much stricter separation of policing powers: Bewley, F., “Final frontier” (1995) 103 Police Review 27 01 p. 22,Google Scholar “Hot pursuit” (1995) 103 Police Review 19 05 p. 18.Google Scholar
25 See: Gordon, G.H., The Criminal Law of Scotland, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh 1978, Suppl. 1992).Google Scholar
26 See: Gordon, G.H., Renton and Brown's Criminal Procedure according to the Law of Scotland, 5th ed. (Edinburgh 1983).Google Scholar
27 The Home Office Extradition Section kindly provided the following statistics which do seem indicative of a gradual increase: These trends are also evident in the US: Nadelmann, E.A., Cops Across Borders (Pennsylvania 1993), p. 401.Google Scholar
28 See: European Convention on Extradition (Cm. 1762,1991); European Convention on Extradition Order 1990 S.I. No. 1507.
29 See: R.v. Governor of Brixton Prison, ex p. Evans (1993) The Times 10 December.
30 See: European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Cm. 1577, 1991).
31 See: Choo, A.L.-T., “The consequences of illegal extradition” [1992] Criminal Law Review 490.Google Scholar
32 [1965] AC. 810.
33 “Extradition” is strictly denned as arising through the operation of bilateral international treaty: Forde, M., The Law of Extradition in the UK (Dublin 1995), pp. 3–4.Google Scholar
34 See: O'Higgins, P., “Irish extradition law and practice” (1958) 34 British Yearbook of International Law 274.Google Scholar
35 [1994] 1 A.C. 42. Related actions are reported as R.v. Horseferry Rd Magistrates' Court, ex p. Bennett (No.2) [1994] 1 All E.R. 289; Bennett v. Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police [1995] 1 W.L.R. 488. See: V. Lowe, “Circumventing extradition procedures as an abuse of process”[1993] C.L.J. 371; Coren, S., “Disguised extradition and abuse of process” (1994)Google Scholar 110 L.Q.R. 393; Choo, A.L.-T., “International kidnapping, disguised extradition and abuse of process” (1994) 57 M.L.R. 626, “Ex parte Bennett” (1994) 5 Criminal Law Forum 165.Google Scholar
36 (1994) The Times 1 April.
37 Nor is it universal; see: US v. Alvarez-Machain (1992) 504 U.S. 655 (though this was a challenge as to jurisdiction rather than as to the propriety of its exercise); Lee, A., Comments: United States v. Alvarez-Machain (1993) 17 Fordham International Law Journal 126;Google ScholarRayfuse, R., “International abduction and the United States Supreme Court” (1993) 42 International and Comparative Legal Quarterly 882;Google ScholarGoebel, H.L., “US v. Alvarez-Machain: The Supreme Court's approval of the abduction of foreign nationals (1993) 25 Toledo Law Review 297;Google ScholarBush, J.A., “How Did We Get Here? Foreign Abduction After Alvarez-Machain” (1993) 45 Stanford Law Review 939.Google Scholar
38 R.v. Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, ex p. Bennett [1995] Q.B. 313.
39 The Irish courts have been notably more active in this respect. See: Russell v. Fanning [1988] I.R. 505; Finucane v. McMahon [1990] 1 I.R. 165; larke v. McMahon [1990] 1 I.R. 228; Magee v. O'Dea [1994] 1 I.L.R.M. 540.
40 [1995] 1 A.C. 339.
41 (1995) The Times 12 April. See also: R.v. Governor of Belmarsh Prison, ex p. Martin [1995] 1 W.L.R. 412.
42 Compare the constitutional argument based on denial of access to legal advice or recourse to the courts in State (Quinn) v. Ryan [1965] I.R. 20; Magee v. O'Dea [1994] I.L.R.M. 540.
43 [1994] 1 A.C. 42, 67.
44 See: Stewart v. Henry 1989 S.L.T. (Sh. Ct.) 34; Fraser v. MacCorquodale 1989 S.L.T. (Sh. Ct.) 39; Murray v. Rogers 1992 S.L.T. 221; Walker, N. and Himsworth, C.M.G., “The Poll Tax and fundamental law” 1991 Juridical Review 45; D.J. Edwards, The Treaty of Union” (1992) 12 Legal Studies 34.Google Scholar
45 S. 18. See: Scottish Law Commission, Report on Evidence: Blood Group Tests, D.N.A. Tests and Related Matters (Paper No. 120, 1989).
46 See: Ewing, K.D. and Finnie, W., Civil Liberties in Scotland, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh 1988), chap. 2.Google Scholar
47 The Scottish Police Federation called for a reconsideration of the limited six hour detention power originally under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980; the Home Affairs Committee recommended a 24 hours period of detention: Practical Police Co-operation in the European Community (1989–90 H.C. 363) para. 127. The Government Reply firmly rejected any change: (Cm. 1367, 1991) p. 9.
48 Compare: Chalmers v.H.M.A. 1954 J.C. 66; Hartley v.H.M.A. 1979 S.L.T. 26.
49 O'Gorman, C., “The corroboration of confessions” (1993) 33 The Criminal Lawyer 1.Google Scholar
50 See Dickson, B., Civil Liberties in Northern Ireland, 2nd ed. (Committee on the Administration of Justice, Belfast, 1993).Google Scholar
51 See for example R.v. Clegg [1995] 2 W.L.R. 80.
52 Debs, H.C.. Standing Committee B col. 1103 1 March 1994, Mr. Maclean.Google Scholar
53 Consultation Paper, para. 2.1.
54 See especially: Leigh, L.H., Police Powers in England and Wales, 2nd ed. (London 1985), pp. 91–98.Google Scholar
55 See also: Supreme Court Act 1981, s. 81.
56 It is arguable that the common law required firm knowledge: Matthew v. Dwan [1949] N.Z.L.R. 1037.
57 See also: Magistrates' Courts Rules 1981 SI no. 552 r. 96.
58 Indictable Offences Act 1848, ss. 12, 14 (now repealed, but s. 13 still applies to execution in the Isle of Man and the Channel Isles and the Summary Jurisdiction (Process) Act 1881, ss. 4, 5 still deals with service and execution). Arrest warrants can similarly be executed in the Republic of Ireland under the Backing of Warrants (Ireland) Act 1965 (for the UK to allow rendition to Ireland) and the Extradition Act 1965 Part III (for rendition from Ireland to the UK). The Irish version is, however, notably more complex in that the warrant must be endorsed by the police in Ireland as properly issued within the terms of the Act and the rendition can be blocked either by the Minister of Justice on grounds that the offence is political (ss. 44, 50) or by the Attorney-General on grounds that there is no clear evidence to prosecute founded on existing sufficient evidence (s. 44A). See: Hogan, G. and Walker, C.P., Political Violence and the Law in Ireland (Manchester 1989),Google Scholar chap. 14; Forde, M., Extradition Law in Ireland, 2nd ed. (Dublin 1995),Google Scholar chap 22.
59 See: R. v. Governor of Brixton Prison, ex p . Keane [1972] A.C. 204.
60 Art. 129 deals with endorsement for bail.
61 Now repealed: Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 Schedule 11.
62 See now the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995,Google Scholar ss. 135, 150, 297.
63 The petition was normally written under the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975,Google Scholar s. 310, but petitions for t he arrest of defendants o r witnesses who have failed to appear could be oral under s. 338.
64 Warrants granted by justices have likewise n ow become geographically unbounded: see Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995,Google Scholar s. 297. Warrants issued by the High Court of Justiciary can be executed anywhere at common law. Warrants issued by District Courts were covered by the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975,Google Scholar s. 326 (see n ow s. 297 of the 1995 Act).
65 See: Indictable Offences Act 1848, s. 15.
66 This procedure avoided the alternative under the Indictable Offences Act 1848 (as amended in 1868), by which warrants issued in another jurisdiction could be enforced if endorsed by a local justice. This is now only of practical importance in regard to the Channel Islands. Warrants from the Isle of Man must also be backed for execution in Scotland, under the 1995 Act s. 297.
67 See: Stoddart, C.N., Criminal Warrants (Edinburgh 1991), pp. 13–14, 29.Google Scholar
68 See: Stoddart, C.N., Criminal Warrants (Edinburgh 1991), pp. 48 et seq.Google Scholar
69 See: Lidstone, K.W. and Palmer, C., The Investigation of Crime, 2nd ed. (London 1996), p. 238.Google Scholar
70 Gordon, G.H., Renton and Brown's Criminal Procedure according to the Law of Scotland, 5th ed., (Edinburgh 1983);Google ScholarLidstone, K.W., “Magistrates, the police and search warrants” [1984] Criminal Law Review 449;Google ScholarStoddart, C.N., Criminal Warrants (Edinburgh, 1991), p. 26.Google Scholar
71 Consultation Paper, para. 3.3.
72 C.P.S. advice to the Cumbria Constabulary in July 1989, based on an opinion of the Law Officers in 1986, was that any questioning after the execution of an arrest warrant would breach PACE Code C para. 17.5 (now 16.5) and that questioning should only relate to the establishment of identity.
73 See: Consultation Paper, para. 2.3; Ewing, K.D. and Finnie, W., Civil Liberties in Scotland, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh 1988), p. 61.Google Scholar
74 See Stoddart, C.N., Criminal Warrants (Edinburgh 1991), pp. 27–28.Google Scholar
75 [1984] A.C. 437.
76 S. 13.
77 It is arguable that mere suspicion is legally sufficient for a warrant, a lower threshold than arrest without warrant. Lidstone, K.W. and Palmer, C., (The Investigation of Crime, 2nd ed. (London 1996), p. 314)Google Scholar suggest that the criterion of reasonable suspicion is pitched so low as to be hardly any different.
78 Consultation Paper, para. 3.1.
79 Consultation Paper, para. 3.2.
80 Perhaps the other notable example where magistrates were actually divested of powers rather than circumvented is fingerprinting: PACE, s. 61.
81 Consultation Paper, para. 4.2.
82 Consultation Paper, para. 4.4.
83 Consultation Paper, para. 4.11.
84 Consultation Paper, para. 4.15.
85 See: Commencement order: SI 1995 No 127. The Indictable Offences Act 1848, ss. 12, 14, 15, and the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, s. 18 are repealed: Schedule 11. See also: ACPO and ACPO (S), Operating Guidelines: Cross Border Powers between the United Kingdom Countries (1995).
86 See also s.l 36(7).
87 ACPO and ACPO (S), Operating Guidelines: Cross Border Powers between the United Kingdom Countries (1995), as described in F. Bewley, “Hot pursuit” (1995) 103 Police Review 19 May p. 18 at pp. 19, 20. The “away” commander must also be provided with a written report of the outcome.
88 Compare PACE, s. 112, which was preserved by s. 137(10) and is now consolidated within the Police Act 1996, s. 99.
89 By s. 137(9), “constable of a police force” , in relation to Northern Ireland, is defined as meaning a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve. This definition is necessary as the office of constable never applied in Ireland. See also s. 140(7), s. 141(8) (now in the Police Act 1996 s. 98(9)).
90 PACE, ss. 24, 25; PACE (NI) Order 1989 Arts. 26, 27.
91 As under section 136, immediate contact must be made with the force control room of the “away” police area and a written report submitted afterwards of action taken: A.C.P.O. and A.C.P.O. (S), Operating Guidelines: Cross Border Powers between the United Kingdom Countries (1995), as described in Bewley, F., “Hot pursuit” (1995) 103 Police Review 19 05 p. 18 at p. 20.Google Scholar
92 Persons detained by Scottish officers may not be taken to premises other than police stations: s. 138(2), (6).
93 Sections 137(8)(c), 138(6). The period is still six hours after arrest in Northern Ireland. The change in the period for England and Wales was probably based on a mistake. The four hour detention period was originally proposed by the police to the Government as applicable to “away” police acting on behalf of the “home” police. When the Bill appeared, this power was omitted altogether but the period was then applied to Scottish officers acting on their own behalf. Source: letter from Inspector Bewley, 5 February 1996.
94 “Premises” and “items subject to legal privilege” are defined by s. 139(12). The section does not affect the extraordinary powers under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, s. 15: s. 139(11).
95 For section 140, see: s. 140((2)(c), (6)(c).
96 S. 136(5)(b), s. 137(8)(b). The word “detention” is unfortunately omitted.
97 Letter from Inspector Bewley, 5 February 1996.
98 Chic Fashions (West Wales) Ltd. v. Jones [1968] 2 Q.B. 299; Ghani v. Jones [1970] 1 Q.B. 693.
99 By ss. 141(6)/98(6) of the 1996 Act, the Secretary of State can also fix the financial contribution which the receiving police authority must pay the sending authority in default of agreement.
100 See: Home Office, Police Reform (Cm. 2281, 1993).
101 Debs., H.C. Standing Committee B col. 1104 1 03 1994, Mr. Maclean.Google Scholar
102 (Cmnd. 535, Belfast, 1969) para. 30.
103 The Times, 10 July 1996, p. 1.
104 Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, Report (Cmnd. 8092, 1981) para. 2.18. See also: Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security, 4th Report (Canberra 1977) Vol. 1,Google Scholar C, paras.122, 123; Commission of Inquiry concerning Certain Activities of the RCMP, Second Report: Freedom and Security under the Law (Ottawa 1981)Google Scholar Pt. V, chap. 4 para. 2.
105 1996–97 HL no. 10.
106 But secondment to international policing organisations, non-Home Office maintained forces, the Home Office and related agencies or the RUC is dealt with by the Police Act 1996, s. 97.
107 Consultation Paper, para. 4.3.
108 See now Police Act 1996, s. 89(3),Google Scholar replacing Schedule 10 para. 14.
109 See now Police Act 1996, s. 88(5)Google Scholar and Sched. 7 paras. 15, 17.
110 Consultation Paper, para. 4.2.
111 ACPO and ACPO (S), Operating Guidelines: Cross Border Powers between the United Kingdom Countries (1995), as described in Bewley, F., “Hot pursuit” (1995) 103 Police Review 19 05 p. 18 at p. 20.Google Scholar
112 Section 160(1) (affecting England and Wales only) is now consolidated within the Police Act 1996, s. 30.
113 1987 SI No. 2198. The instrument is made under the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982, s. 22.
114 The police force most likely to be involved is Grampian, which created an oil liaison unit in 1976: S. Gibbons, “Roughneck” (1995) 103 Police Review 15 December p. 24.
115 See: Northern Ireland Office, Frameworks for the Future (Cm. 2964, 1995); Northern Ireland: Ground Rules for Substantive All-Party Negotiations (Cm. 3232, 1996); Northern Ireland Decommissioning Bill 1996–97 (H.C. no. 45).
116 Debs, H.C. Standing Committee B col. 1103 1 03 1994, Mr. Maclean.Google Scholar
117 Consultation Paper, para. 3.1.
118 See: Gilbert, G., “Crimes sans frontiere” (1992) 63 British Yearbook of International Law 415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
119 See: Hogan, G. and Walker, C., Political Violence and the Law in Ireland (Manchester 1989),Google Scholar chap. 15.
120 But note Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984, which implements the European Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons (E.T.S. 112, 1983).
121 18 U.S.C. s. 2331.
122 See: Donnelly, P.L., “Extraterritorial jurisdiction over acts of terrorism committed abroad” (1987) 72 Cornell Law Review 599;Google ScholarHeymann, P.B. and Gershergorn, I.H., “Pursuing justice, respecting the law” (1991) 3 Criminal Law Forum 1;CrossRefGoogle ScholarBlakesley, C., Terrorism, Drugs, International Law and the Protection of Human Liberty (New York 1992),Google Scholar chap. 3; Nadelmann, E.A., Cops Across Borders (Pennsylvania 1993).Google Scholar
123 See: US v. Yunis (1991) 924 F. 2d 1086; Cassesse, A., Terrorism, Politics and Law (Oxford 1989);Google Scholar E.S. Evans, “International kidnapping in a violent world” (1992) 137 Military Law Review 187; M.H. Drake “United States v. Yunis: The Circuit's, D.C.Dubious Approval of US Long-Arm Jurisdiction Over Extraterritorial Crimes” (1993) 87 Northwestern University Law Review 697.Google Scholar
124 See: Jones, A., Jones on Extradition (London 1994);Google ScholarForde, M., The Law of Extradition in the United Kingdom (Dublin 1995).Google Scholar
125 See: Council of Europe, European Committee on Crime Problems, Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction (reported at (1992) 3 Criminal Law Forum 446.
126 See: Extradition Act 1989, s. 18.
127 Lascelles v. Georgia (1893) 148 U.S. 537; Siegel v. Edwards (1978) 566 F 2d 958. But the principle has now been imported as between the UK. and the Republic of Ireland: Criminal Justice Act 1993, s. 72 (UK); see: Extradition (Amendment) Act 1987, s. 3, as applied by 1994 SI No. 221 (Ireland).
128 White, v.King County (1988) 748 P. 2d 616.Google Scholar
129 The rule might be problematic in relation to the Scottishcommon law offence of fraud.
130 Garrison v. Smith (1976) F. Supp. 746; Bradley, V.Extradition Corporation of America (1991) 758Google Scholar FSupp. 1153.
131 For recent discussions, see: Kulman, B.G., “Eliminating the political offence exception for violent crimes” (1986) 26 Virginia Journal of International Law 755;Google ScholarBlakesley, C.L., “The law of international extradition” (1991) 62 Review International de Droit Penal 381Google Scholar at p. 447; van den Wyngaert, C., “The political offence exception to extradition” (1991) 62 Review International de Droit Penal 291;Google ScholarGal-Or, N., International Cooperation to Suppress Terrorism (London 1985);Google ScholarGilbert, G.; Aspects of Extradition Law (Dordrecht 1991);Google ScholarCampbell, C., “Extradition to Northern Ireland” (1989) 52 M.L.R. 585;Google ScholarHogan, G. and Walker, C., Political Violence and the Law in Ireland (Manchester 1989)Google Scholar chs. 14, 15; Gilbert, G., “Extradition and fugitive offenders” in Hayes, J. and O'Higgins, P. (eds.), Lessons from Northern Ireland (Belfast 1990);Google ScholarDelaney, H. and Hogan, G., “Anglo-Irish extradition viewed from an Irish perspective” [1993] Public Law 93;Google ScholarT. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [1995] 1 W.L.R. 545.
132 Appleyard v. Massachusetts (1906) 203 U.S. 222; Biddinger v. Commissioner of Police of New York (1917) 245 U.S. 128; Bramwells. Owen (1921) 276 F. 36.
133 US v. Cooke (1913) 238 U.S. 613.
134 See also UK-US Supplementary Treaty (1985) 24 l.L.M. 1105 (Cmnd. 9862, 1986).
135 Ex p. Reggel (1885) 114 U.S. 642; Michigan v. Doran (1978) 439 U.S. 282.
136 11 Uniform Laws Annotated.
137 For the background, see: Murphy, J., Arrest by Police Computer (Massachusetts 1976);Google ScholarAbramson, L.W., “Extradition in America” (1981) 33 Baylor Law Review 793;Google ScholarMurphy, J.J., “Revising domestic extradition law” (1983) 131 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
138 (1967) 373 F.2d 149, 155.
139 Under the UK's Extradition Aci 1989, s. 9(1), this must be achieved as soon as possible, but there is no express requirement to that effect for old-style Schedule 1 proceedings.
140 Mageev. O'Dea [1994] 1 I.L.R.M. 540.
141 See n. 58 above.
142 Consultation Paper, paras. 4.5.
143 Consultation Paper, paras. 4.14.
144 These powers include arrests of the following: persons seen committing, or having just been accused of having committed, a crime at common law; persons fleeing the scene of a crime; persons threatening danger to another; persons acting in breach of the peace. See: Ewing, K.D. and Finnie, W., Civil Liberties in Scotland, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh 1988),Google Scholar chap. 2.
145 Consultation Paper, para. 4.6.
146 This would not include initial questioning to establish identity: Bewley, F., “Hot pursuit” (1995) 103 Police Review 19 05 p. 18Google Scholar at p. 19.
147 According to PACE Code C para. 1.12, only paras. 8 (conditions of detention) and 9 (treatment of detained persons) apply to persons detained under section 137(2)(c). However, the ACPO Guidelines do also recommend the keeping of records and reviewing the necessity of the detention: ACPO and ACPO (S), Operating Guidelines: Cross Border Powers between the United Kingdom Countries (1995), as described in Bewley, F., “Hot pursuit” (1995) 103 Police Review 19 05 p. 18Google Scholar at p. 19. A further complication is that a “juvenile” in Scotland is a person who has not yet attained the age of 16 years.
148 ACPO and ACPO (S), Operating Guidelines: Cross Border Powers between the United Kingdom Countries (1995), as described in Bewley, F., “Hot pursuit” (1995) 103 Police Review 19 05 p. 18Google Scholar at p. 19.
149 This might be solved by the appointment of an English “agent” by a Scottish solicitor, but the quality of advice on Scottish laws from an English solicitor appointed in an emergency must be doubted.
150 Consultation Paper, para. 4.9.
151 Consultation Paper, para. 4.10. “Away” powers could not be used; though the evidence of a fellow police officer might well be sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion, it will relate to wrongdoing which occurred outwith the jurisdiction of the “away” officer and so is not an offence relevant to “away” police powers.
152 Certainly the police view this possible arrest procedure as desirable and continue to lobby for its enactment: Bewley, F., “Hot pursuit” (1995) 103 Police Review 19 05 p. 18Google Scholar at p. 19.
153 Compare: McKeev. Chief Constable for Northern Ireland [1984] 1 W.L.R. 1358.
154 See Walker, C., The Prevention of Terrorism in British Law, 2nd ed. (Manchester 1992),Google Scholar chap. 9.
155 This has been suggested only in regard to road traffic laws: Home Affairs Committee, Practical Police Co-operation in the European Communities (1989–90 H.C. 363) para. 96.
156 Home Affairs Committee, Practical Police Co-operation in the European Communities (1989– 90 H.C. 363) para. 108.
157 Government Reply to the Home Affairs Committee (Cm. 1367, 1991), p. 7.
158 See: Police Bill 1996–97 (H.L. no. 10) cl. 1.
159 “1995 S.L.T. 434.
160 Consultation Paper, para. 5.6.
161 See: Bewley, F., “Final frontier” (1995) 103 Police Review 27 01 p. 22Google Scholar at p. 23. The scheme for offences taken into consideration was viewed as too complex and politically difficult in the light of the Act of Union.
162 (European Commission, 1995) para. 49. Areas of harmonisation seen as particularly important are extradition and fraud law. See also the Tyrrell report on the European Judicial Area: Report on behalf of the Legal Affairs Committee on the European Judicial Area (Doc 1-318/82); Freestone, D., “The EEC Treaty and common action on terrorism” (1984) 4 Yearbook of European Law 207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar But note that the later Zagari Report (Report to the Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizen's Rights on Problems relating to combating terrorism (A 2–155/89) viewed a European Judicial Area in terms of coordination and mutual confidence rather than in terms of homogeneous legislation.
163 Home Affairs Committee, Practical Police Co-operation in the European Communities (1989–90 H.C. 363); Government Reply (Cm. 1367, 1991); Fooner, M., Interpol (New York 1989);CrossRefGoogle ScholarAnderson, M., Policing the World (Oxford 1989).Google Scholar
164 For further possible developments, see: Tigar, S.M. and Doyle, A., “International exchange of information in criminal cases” (1983) Michigan Yearbook of International Studies 61;Google ScholarVercher, A., Terrorism in Europe (Oxford 1992)Google Scholar and Review [1993] 13 Legal Studies 415.
165 E.T.S. 30, 1959.
166 See: Feerley, J.M., “Mutual assistance” (1991) 155 Justice of the Peace 373.Google Scholar
167 See: R. v. Governor of Pentonville Prison ex p. Voets [1986] 1 W.L.R. 420; In re Rees [1986] AC. 937; Government of Belgium v. Postlethwaite [1987] 2 All E.R. 985; Oskar v. Government of Australia [1988] 2 W.L.R. 82.
168 Extradition Act 1989, ss. 26, 27.
169 Loc. cit. para. 3.52.
170 See: Swyngedouw, , “The Mammon quest” in Dunford, M. and Kafkalas, G. (eds.), Cities and Regions in the New Europe (London 1992);Google ScholarWalker, N., “European integration and European policing” in Anderson, M. and den Boer, M. (eds), Policing Across Transnational Boundaries (London 1994);Google ScholarShearing, C., “Governing diversity” (1995) S.L.S.A. Conference, University of Leeds.Google Scholar
171 See: Giddens, A., The Consequences of Modernity (Cambridge 1990).Google Scholar
172 See: Nelken, D., The Futures of Criminology (London 1994) p. 221.Google Scholar
173 Rhodes, R., “The hollowing out of the state” (1994) 65 Pol. Q. 137;Google ScholarJessop, B., “The regulation approach, governance and post-Fordism (1995) 24(3) Economy and Society 307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
174 Jessop, B., “Post-Fordism and the State” in A. Amin, Post Fordism (Oxford 1994) at p. 274.Google Scholar
175 The Association of Chief Police Officers Working Group Report, loc. cit. para. 3.4 reveals concerns about accountability voiced by “local politicians” . See also the commentaries on Europol in (1994) Statewatch Bulletin 4.3, 4.5.