Netherlands A similar case between the Netherlands and Ireland, involved two Irish defendants detained in the Netherlands. In that case, the Judge in the Netherlands had sought to apply the ESO to allow the return of the two accused, but as Ireland had not implemented the ESO, the Court, taking a pragmatic view granted bail with conditions that they sign on at the Dutch Embassy in Ireland. This case is illustrative of the negative effect non implementation by one Member State can have on another that has already implemented the legislation. 3.2.3. challenges regarding the practical application of the fd eso Both examples emanating from the UK illustrate the challenges in terms of the practical implementation of the ESO. The first was the lack of awareness of its existence by the relevant stakeholders, such as the judge and the prosecutor, and the second revolved around how the ESO’s application indeed works in practice, as Richard Saynor, the barrister involved in the two ESO cases identified, “it is not entirely clear who is responsible for what”224.  Two issues arise from this, the first relates to legal costs, and access to legal aid. Both of the examples referred to above involved private clients, and so the question of legal aid did not arise, but would otherwise by highly relevant. Secondly, the lack of a system or clear procedural path increased the amount of work that was involved in the case and ultimately it took approximately a hundred hours of work per order. Furthermore the lack of a clear procedure and the resulting delays in obtaining an order meant that both individuals spent a considerable amount of time in pre-trial detention ranging from 2-3months. Other issues identified revolved around the significant volume of documentation that was required during the course of the application: It was identified that in excess of 50 pages was accumulated including skeleton arguments, draft order, references and the information required by the Spanish authorities. A more consistent implementation across the EU of ESO is needed to better safeguard the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty. In considering and evaluating the application of ESO, it is clear that the ESO can serve to ensure that pre-trial detention is a measure of last resort. It tackles the discrimination that a foreign accused person might face in terms of a bail condition on account of the flight risk concerns emanating from a lack of ties to a particular jurisdiction. It addresses the significant obstacles an individual accused of an offence abroad can face in terms of being removed from family support, their regular employment, not speaking the language, and the greater barriers that they face in custody. Greater reliance on alternatives to detention in cases where imprisonment is not necessary, leads to reduction in overcrowding which impacts upon detention conditions and the better protection against inhuman treatment. As the UN handbook on alternatives to detention notes “implementing effective alternatives to imprisonment will reduce overcrowding and make it easier 224 56 Interview with Richard Saynor, Barrisiter on 9th November 2016.