Natural Forum

Caroline Flint MP was elected for Don Valley, South Yorkshire in 1997,
and is Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Home Office, responsible for extradition. She was closely involved in the introduction of the new Extradition Act and has also had some involvement in the proposed extradition of BDM.

In an interview on Newsnight, BBC2, in June 2003 she tried to allay the fears of a British public concerned that their legal rights were being eroded in the name of trans-Atlantic co-operation.

She stated,

“The point is that people who are accused of a crime should be judged by that crime in the country where the offence is committed

She went on to say,

“the trial should take place in the country where it is alleged the crime has been committed”

So given Ms Flint’s rationale the natural forum for the case involving BDM is here in the UK as:

The victim is British.

The accused are British.

The vast majority of the alleged criminal activity took place in the UK.

The necessary evidence to mount a defence can be found within the UK.

Ms Flint’s boss, David Blunkett, has also underlined the concept of natural forum by stating,

“Had we evidence in this country of a crime committed here then of course the police and the Attorney General would have taken action”.

David Blunkett, Home Secretary, in April 2004 the morning after the arrest of Abu Hamza pursuant to a request for his extradition by the US.

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, clearly agrees given that this was his justification for initiating proceedings against Abu Hamza in the UK. A source close to the Attorney General confirmed that he believed UK citizens should be dealt with here in the UK where possible. Daily Telegraph October 2004

Government assurances clearly do not square with reality. This is the first real test of the 2003 Extradition Act and the fact that BDM are British, that Nat West is a UK company and that the majority of the alleged criminal activity took place in London seems to have been purposely ignored at the highest levels of Government.

In line with Europe?

Justifying the change, Ms Flint has stated that the 2003 Extradition Act brings the UK into line with some of its European neighbours in relation to extradition agreements with the US

“Such extradition relations with the US are not unique in Europe.  The bilateral extradition treaty between the US and Ireland, which dates from 1984, contains exactly the same evidential provision.  Perhaps more significantly, so does the bilateral treaty between France and the US, which is less than 10 years old.  Whatever unjustified suggestions there may be about relations between the UK, or even Ireland, and the US, I trust that no hon. Member would seriously suggest that France is subservient to the US, that it automatically does the US’s bidding, or that the US is uninterested in the rights of French citizens.  Both Ireland and France have accepted the restraints imposed by the terms of the US constitution.  They see nothing wrong with treaties that impose differential evidential requirements, and we should follow their example.”

Caroline Flint MP, Home Office Minister.  House of Commons Standing Committee 15 December 2003

However, a more detailed examination of these Treaties shows that the concept of Natural Forum has been explicitly embraced by both the French and the Irish:-

“Extradition may be refused when the offense for which extradition is requested is regarded under the law of the Requested State as having been committed in its territory.  If extradition is refused pursuant to this paragraph, the Requested State shall submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution”.

Article 3.2 of the Irish/US Extradition Treaty

And,

“Extradition may be refused…..when the competent authorities of the Requested State have decided to refrain from prosecuting the person whose surrender is sought for the offense for which extradition is requested, or to discontinue any criminal proceedings which have been initiated against that person for that offense.”

Article 5(b) of the Irish/US Extradition Treaty

And…

“There is no obligation on the Requested State to grant the extradition of a person who is a national of the Requested State…If extradition is refused solely on the basis of the nationality of the person sought, the Requested State shall, at the request of the Requesting State, submit the case to its authorities for prosecution.”

Article 3 of the French/US Extradition Treaty

The approaches of the French and Irish on one hand and the UK on the other clearly differ. The Irish have set out the concept of natural forum in their arrangements so that people accused of committing a crime in Ireland are tried there and if the authorities in Ireland have deemed fit not to bring a prosecution for an offence then they cannot be extradited for this. The French are not duty bound to hand over their citizens. In fact an extradition request by the US for four senior French financiers made through Interpol by Deborah Yang, a federal prosecutor, was formally rejected by the Ministry of Justice on the grounds that it is not French policy to extradite French citizens.

In these instances, both the French and Irish are simply using the provisions of Article 6 & Article 7 of the European Convention on Extradition to which the UK is also a signatory.  Natural Forum as a concept has also been embraced by the Government in the European Convention on Human rights - Article 7.1 (Place of Commission) stating:

The requested Party may refuse to extradite a person claimed for an offence which is regarded by its law as having been committed in whole or in part in its territory or in a place treated as its territory.

We believe that the UK is unique in ignoring issues of Natural Forum in its new Extradition arrangements with the United States. We are concerned that many more UK citizens, including BDM, can be extradited to the United States, with minimal evidence and no more than an email crossing a US border. Surely this was not the Government’s intention in drafting the Act and the subsequent Treaty.  Indeed as signatories to the European Convention on Extradition (see link below), the UK Government has already embraced the concept of Natural Forum, and we intend to press Parliament to correct this anomaly as soon as possible to protect its own Citizens from unnecessary Extraditions.

http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/024.htm