Modernising cross-border criminal justice: why the UK needs a root-and-branch reform

The need for reform is not abstract or theoretical. Cross-border criminal activity, whether it involves fraud, cybercrime, organised crime or politically sensitive cases, has become the norm, not the exception. 

Law enforcement agencies increasingly rely on international cooperation mechanisms to gather evidence, secure suspects, and bring prosecutions. Yet the UK’s legal infrastructure in this area is still largely shaped by legislative frameworks and institutional arrangements developed in the early 2000s. In some cases, such as Mutual Legal Assistance, there has never been a comprehensive review at all. 

Meanwhile, rising demand, a post-Brexit legal environment, and increasing concerns around human rights and state accountability have placed serious strain on a system never designed for today’s realities. 

Published in June 2025, the Criminal Law Reform Now Network (CLRNN) Scoping Review warned that without principled, targeted reform, the UK may struggle to keep pace with the evolving demands of cross-border criminal justice and maintain its effectiveness as a global partner in tackling transnational crime.

Submitted to the Law Commission, the CLRNN report calls for a comprehensive review of the law relating to Extradition, Mutual Legal Assistance and Criminal Jurisdiction. The CLRNN believes that there is strong evidence that a Law Commission project could have substantial and positive impact on the current legal framework to a fairer, more efficient, and cost-effective system fit for the challenges of the 21st century.

Below are key findings and recommendations of the report, and why they matter.

Extradition 

I was pleased to contribute to the section on Extradition, a timely focus, given that the last substantive review of the UK’s extradition arrangements was in 2011. Legislative reforms followed in 2013 and 2014, introducing the requirement for permission to appeal, new bars to extradition based on whether a decision to charge and try had been made and on forum, an amendment to the dual criminality requirements, a proportionality bar and changes to the rules on speciality.  Many of these provisions have since been subject to significant judicial consideration. 

Since then, the UK no longer participates in the European Arrest Warrant. Instead, surrender arrangements with EU Member States are governed by Title VII, Part Three of the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement. This change has brought its own complexities and uncertainties, reinforcing the need for a comprehensive and up-to-date review of the entire extradition framework. 

The report sets out a number of areas ripe for reform, and proposes a prioritised approach to review, indicating issues which should be of high, medium or longer term priority. Among he highest priorities are: 

• Assurances: the widespread and growing reliance on diplomatic assurances has exposed a lack of clear criteria, oversight, or remedies when assurances are breached.
• Forum Bar: this provision has attracted significant criticism for failing to deliver legal certainty or adequately address issues of forum shopping and jurisdictional overreach.
• Speciality: the procedures for ensuring that extradited persons are only tried for the offences specified in the extradition request are inconsistent and lack effective procedural safeguards or appeal mechanisms.
• Decision to try and charge: intended to prevent pre-charge extradition and lengthy pre-trial detention, this bar remains complex, inconsistently applied, and arguably ineffective in achieving its goal.
• Asylum: the intersection of asylum and extradition proceedings creates duplication, delays, and, in some cases, conflicting outcomes, undermining the principle of legal certainty and fairness.
• The role of the Crown Prosecution Service
• Dual Criminality: Recent case law, most notably El-Khouri, has significantly altered how the courts assess dual criminality in cases involving extraterritorial conduct, introducing new complexity.

Efficient extradition processes are a vital to the UK’s ability to uphold its international obligations. But extradition is also a mechanism that profoundly affects individual rights. The CLRNN report reiterates that the law must seek to balance the UK’s international obligations and desire to ensure comity with safeguards that protect the rights of individuals. 

Mutual Legal Assistance 

In an increasingly globalised world, criminal activity is borderless. Law enforcement agencies must increasingly rely on their counterparts overseas. MLA has never been so critical: the number of cases involving conduct in multiple jurisdictions or the need to obtain evidence located overseas is steadily increasing. 

Yet, as the CLRNN report recalls, there has never been a review of mutual legal assistance. The UK’s MLA system is outdated, inefficient and lacks a clear statutory framework. Among the most pressing issues identified are the inconsistent application of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) to incoming requests, uncertainty over the admissibility of overseas evidence, and the undeveloped role of police-to-police cooperation. Moreover, the report calls on the Law Commission to consider the impact of data protection rules on MLA and consider whether the current safeguards are proportionate and necessary in all circumstances.

Criminal Jurisdiction

The UK’s current framework for territorial and extraterritorial jurisdiction is fragmented, inconsistently applied, and often opaque—posing real challenges to the effective prosecution of cross-border crime. The CLRNN report highlights how this lack of clarity creates uncertainty for investigators, prosecutors, and courts alike.

The CLRNN review suggests that as part of the current Government’s broader focus on ensuring that the UK can cooperate as efficiently and swiftly as possible with its partners in the fight against cross-border crime,  a Law Commission review of jurisdiction offers the opportunity to consider whether the UK’s approach to prosecuting cross-border crime is fit for purpose and producing fair and predictable outcomes.

A root and branch review 

The CLRNN calls for a root and branch review encompassing all aspects of international cooperation in criminal matters; extradition, mutual legal assistance and criminal jurisdiction.  Whilst each of the topics could arguably be addressed in separate projects, the three are interdependent and would benefit from being considered together either in a single bill or a set of related bills. These areas share key legal concepts, such as dual criminality and speciality, and all are shaped by the UK’s international obligations and its ability to cooperate effectively with other states.

As the Government looks to ensure that UK can cooperate as efficiently and swiftly as possible with its partners in the fight to suppress and prosecute transnational crime, a Law Commission review of jurisdiction would offer the opportunity to consider whether the UK’s approach to prosecuting cross-border crime is fit for purpose —and whether it delivers fair, consistent, and predictable outcomes in cross-border cases. The message from the CLRNN is clear: now is the time to act.