Professor Jacqueline Hodgson, one of several experts in the case of Hassan Diab, who was extradited to France on Friday after six years of legal proceedings in Canada, has described the situation as “troubling”. She provided evidence about the investigation and prosecution procedure in terrorism cases in France, in particular, the problematic nature of using unsourced intelligence.

Her comment in full: “The case of Hassan Diab, a 60-year-old sociology professor who has been extradited to France, is a troubling one. France has charged Diab with first degree murder in relation to the Rue Copernic terrorist bombing in Paris in 1980, which killed four people and injured dozens more.

“The evidence against him hinges firstly on unsourced intelligence that would be inadmissible in a criminal court in England and Wales (reliability cannot be tested if the source of information and the manner in which it was obtained are unknown); and secondly on the opinion of a handwriting expert described as wholly unreliable by five of the world's leading handwriting analysts.

“The opportunity to challenge the evidence presented by the requesting state in extradition proceedings in Canada is limited. The Ontario Superior Court judge, who originally committed Diab for extradition, did so despite acknowledging the weakness of the French case.”

As MPs prepare to vote on whether the UK should opt in to a range of EU legal measures, including the European Arrest Warrant, Professor Jacqueline Hodgson, from the School of Law at the University of Warwick, commented: "Having provided expert evidence in European Arrest Warrant (EAW) cases, as well as conducting comparative empirical studies into the criminal justice processes of various European countries, there are clearly some problems with the procedure.

“Issuing a EAW effectively activates the police and courts of another jurisdiction, so it is also important that this is not done lightly and that proper protections are in place: extradition must only be for the purpose of prosecution or sentence and not simply for investigation; the procedure should not be abused for minor offences; and suspects must be assured of the same legal protections and fair trial rights wherever they are prosecuted and tried.

“These issues will not be resolved by the UK pulling out of the EAW procedure - they are better resolved at EU level so that extradition works better for UK citizens extradited abroad, and for the UK authorities requiring the extradition of individuals for trial in this jurisdiction.

“Without the EAW, extradition is slower and more complex and it will be more difficult to prosecute individuals for cross-border crime. This is also the view of senior British police officers working with Europol.”

Jackie Hodgson and Laurène Soubise presented a draft paper 'Understanding the Sentencing Process in France' at a three-day workshop on comparative sentencing in Bologna, Italy, in October 2014.

This forms part of a major comparative project on sentencing laws and practices initiated and coordinated by Michael Tonry from the University of Minnesota which aims to describe current sentencing laws, practices, and punishment patterns, as well as explain major changes in sentencing since 1990.

Other speakers included Arie Freiberg (Monash University), Julian Roberts and Andrew Ashworth (University of Oxford), Thomas Weigend (Cologne University), Dirk Van Zyl Smit (University of Nottingham) and Clare Ballard (University of the Western Cape), Anthony Doob (University of Toronto) and Cheryl Webster (University of Ottawa), Sonja Snacken and Veerle Scheirs (Vrije University Brussel), Krzystof Krajewski (Jagiellonian University) and Tapio Lappi-Seppälä (National Research Institute of Legal Policy Helsinki, Finland).

Jackie Hodgson has been conferred the award of Academician of the Academy of Social Sciences in recognition of her distinctive and distinguished contributions to Social Science.

The Academy of Social Sciences is the National Academy of Academics, Learned Societies and Practitioners in the Social Sciences. Its mission is to promote social sciences in the United Kingdom for the public benefit. Being an Academician means that a peer group has reviewed the standing and impact of one’s work and found it worthy of the conferment of the award of Academician.

Jackie has conducted ethnographic research in the field of criminal justice both in England and Wales and in Europe across more than two decades. Through a series of path-breaking studies of the work and practices of criminal defence lawyers, including a study commissioned by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (1993), her research and scholarship has had a significant impact on policy and practice. It led to the transformation of professional standards, guidelines and training for criminal defence provision in England and Wales. Her work is empirical and often comparative, and adopts a socio-legal approach to the study of criminal justice, as evidenced by her large-scale ethnographic studies of legal actors and legal processes. These studies have contributed to our understanding of legal processes by using qualitative empirical findings to challenge the effectiveness of legal norms and procedures as they operate in practice. Her work impacts on policy and practice, as well as academic scholarship, by demonstrating the limitations of legal procedural protections when legal and occupational cultures are not also addressed.

Jackie actively promotes a broader social science approach to the study of law, training the next generation of researchers through externally funded research and doctoral students. She has been elected to the Council of JUSTICE and has provided expert evidence to government bodies and the courts. She is the Director of Warwick Law School’s Centre for Criminal Justice, which promotes a socio-legal and interdisciplinary approach to the study of law. She is currently establishing a cross-faculty Centre for Operational Policing Research with colleagues from Psychology and the Warwick Business School.

Blackstock, J., Lloyd-Cape, E., Hodgson, J., Ogorodova, A. and Spronken, T. Inside Police Custody: An Empirical Account of Suspects' Rights in Four Jurisdictions, published by Intersentia.

This empirical study of the procedural rights of suspects in four EU jurisdictions – France, Scotland, the Netherlands and England and Wales – focuses on three of the procedural rights set out in the EU Roadmap for strengthening the procedural rights of suspected or accused persons in criminal proceedings – the right to interpretation and translation; the right to information and the letter of rights; and the right to legal assistance before and during police interrogation.

In order to examine how these procedural rights operate in practice, the authors spent between two and five months in eight field sites across the four jurisdictions. During this time they observed lawyers and police officers during the period of police custody; examined case records; observed lawyer-client consultations; and attended suspect interrogations. Furthermore, they conducted 75 interviews with police officers, lawyers and accredited legal representatives.

In addition to producing and analysing empirical data, the authors have developed training guidelines for lawyers and police officers involved in the police detention process for use across the EU. The project team also produced a series of recommendations for legislative and policy changes designed to ensure better enforcement of the EU procedural rights’ instruments that are envisaged in the Stockholm Programme.

The study was carried out by the Universities of Maastricht, Warwick and the West of England, together with JUSTICE. Avon and Somerset Police and the Open Society Justice Initiative were also collaborators on the project.

"Inside Police Custody has been eagerly awaited by those working on legislation and policy in the field of procedural protections for suspects at EU level. This ground-breaking study is the first piece of comparative research to look at what actually happens in the process of police detention and interrogation in different jurisdictions, and to assess the differences in practice. Its findings will make essential reading and inform legislation at both EU and national level."
Caroline Morgan, Principal Administrator and former Procedural Rights Team Leader at the European Commission.