§ Lord Lamont of Lerwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answers by the Lord Chancellor on 26 January (WA 138–139), whether the concerns about the validity of the first warrant, referred to in the Lord Chancellor's reply, made the first warrant invalid. [HL776]
§ The Lord ChancellorConcerns as to whether a warrant may or may not be invalid are of no legal effect and have no bearing on its validity. However, the first warrant was quashed by the Divisional Court on 28 October 1998.
§ Lord Lamont of Lerwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answers by the Lord Chancellor on 26 January (WA 138–139), whether an indefinite number of provisional warrants could be issued, following concerns about the validity of a previous one. [HL774]
§ The Lord ChancellorAs a matter of law there is no statutory limit on the number of provisional warrants which may be issued under the Extradition Act 1989.
§ Lord Lamont of Lerwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answers by the Lord Chancellor on 26 January (WA 138–139), why General Pinochet was not informed about the concern as to the validity of the warrant referred to in the Lord Chancellor's reply. [HL775]
§ The Lord ChancellorThe issues canvassed trespass on areas of legal professional privilege and cannot therefore be the subject of a reply.
29WA
§ Lord Lamont of Lerwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answers by the Lord Chancellor on 26 January (WA 138–139), what precisely were the concerns referred to in the Lord Chancellor's reply about the validity of the first warrant. [HL777]
§ The Lord ChancellorThe issues canvassed trespass on areas of legal professional privilege and cannot therefore be the subject of a reply.
§ Lord Lamont of Lerwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answers by the Lord Chancellor on 26 January (WA 138–139), on what date did the concerns referred to in the Lord Chancellor's reply about the validity of the first warrant emerge. [HL778]
§ The Lord ChancellorThe issues canvassed trespass on areas of legal professional privilege and cannot therefore be the subject of a reply.
§ Lord Lamont of Lerwickasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answers by the Lord Chancellor on 26 January (WA 138–139), about the Crown Prosecution Service's involvement in the preparation of the warrant for the arrest of General Pinochet, who expressed the concerns, referred to in the Lord Chancellor's reply, about the validity of the first warrant. [HL779]
§ The Lord ChancellorThe issues canvassed trespass on areas of legal professional privilege and cannot therefore be the subject of a reply.