To my mind, that is the most important question, because I do not believe anybody thinks that people should be allowed to get away with committing a crime and not be prosecuted for it. For those cases where there is sufficient evidence to suggest that somebody should face trial, I think that the most important question is where they should face trial.
In the U.K., those decisions are generally taken between prosecutors of different countries. It is certainly unclear to me to what extent they take account of the suspect or the defendant when making that decision. My concern is that ordinarily they only prioritize their desire to successfully prosecute somebody or their desire to obtain the maximum penalty they can. What they don't take into account in the balancing process is the effect on the person of being taken out of the country where they reside and where they are familiar with the system, and being put into another country in order to be prosecuted there.
I think it is [Technical difficulty—Editor]that as well as looking at the extradition process, you also look at the system for deciding whether somebody should be prosecuted. In an extradition context, it is very unattractive for an extradition court to say, “I'm going to stop tradition. This person is not going to be prosecuted anywhere...even though there appears to be sufficient evidence to suggest they should be prosecuted.”
I'm referring back to one of the earlier comments. There are countries that do say that for their nationals or their citizens. They will refuse extradition, but they will prosecute them instead. They are not rendered immune from prosecution, but they are then prosecuted in the country where they live or where they ordinarily reside and in a system they're familiar with.