 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
They said it !The strength of the statements attributed to some Government ministers may lead you to think that they are on our side, well they're not. In fact, they are the same people who believe that it is in the interests of British justice that three British men accused of defrauding a British bank whilst working in London are tried in Texas. Natural Forum “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 Caroline Flint, Home Office minister. Discussing
the new Extradition Treaty with the U.S. Newsnight, 23 June 2003 “the trial should take place in the country where it is alleged the crime has been committed” Caroline Flint MP, Home Office Minister. Newsnight 23 June
2003 “we do believe that mini trials based on partial evidence cannot happen in this country but should take place at a full court hearing in the country in which the crime is alleged to have been committed” Caroline Flint MP, Home Office Minister. Newsnight 23 June
2003 “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. Arguments For and Against the New Arrangements with the US “We have a 30 year treaty with America which needs to be streamlined to make sure that criminals who try to escape justice can be extradited” Caroline Flint MP, Home Office Minister. Newsnight 23 June 2003
“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 ess 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. All european countries,
including Ireland and France, embrace the concept of natural forum
and would not extradite their citizens in situations such as these. “The orders give us the opportunity to enact provisions in the Extradition Act that firmly and for the first time ensure human rights for individuals whose extradition may be requested.” Caroline Flint MP, Home Office Minister. House of Commons Standing Committee 15 December 2003 “The differences in standards of justice between
the different state jurisdictions are quite marked. Without
wishing to be unkind to any of the states, there is a difference
between the way in which matters are conducted in a New England
state and, perhaps, the great states of Mississippi or Texas. I
am not making a value judgement, but simply saying that it would
be extraordinary for us to sign a carte-blanche on that basis.” “American law schools sometimes joke that if anyone has ever flown over the state of New York on the way to California, a New York court will be willing to assume jurisdiction over them.” Menzies Campbell MP. House of Commons Standing Committee 15
December 2003 “The USA has 51 different legal jurisdictions. The standards of the criminal process in the federal courts and in some American states is undoubtedly satisfactory. However, in other states – I mention Texas in particular as one – the standards are far from satisfactory.” Lord Goodhart. House of Lords Standing Committee 16 December 2003
“The Treaty has not been enforced yet because it has not been signed by the US Senate. We anticipate that the Treaty will be put before the Senate early in the New Year and approved shortly thereafter. We do not anticipate that we shall encounter any difficulties in that regard.” Baroness Scotland (Government Minister). House of Lords Standing Committee 16 December 2003. The U.S. has not yet ratified the treaty and may never do so.
“I would like to emphasise here, Kirsty, that people for whom a request is made will have safeguards to protect them both in terms of their identity but also their human rights based on our signing up of the European Charter [sic] on Human Rights” Caroline Flint MP, Home Office Minister. Newsnight 23 June 2003
Caroline Flint MP, Home Office Minister. House of Commons
Standing Committee 15 December 2003 “One of the very positive aspects of the Extradition Act 2003 is that it includes many safeguards, which were not clear before, to protect citizens’ rights. They provide ample protection for UK citizens.” Caroline Flint MP, Home Office Minister. House of Commons
Standing Committee 15 December 2003 “We are in the business of protecting our citizens and those within our jurisdiction.” Caroline Flint MP, Home Office Minister. House of Commons
Standing Committee 15 December 2003 “Most important, extradition cannot take place when it would be contrary to the person’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. An ECHR case established that our obligations in that respect extend to the person’s likely treatment after extradition. Those are solid safeguards for protecting UK citizens”. Caroline Flint MP, Home Office Minister. House of Commons
Standing Committee 15 December 2003 “The USA is a trusted extradition partner and a mature jurisdiction within which British defendants, if extradited, will be guaranteed a fair trial”. Caroline Flint MP, Home Office Minister. Letter to Boris
Johnson MP 13th October 2004 Comparison with Other Jurisdictions “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 “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 “Extradition may be refused…..when the competent authoritsies 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 “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 “In the United States it seems money buys everything, even innocence or guilt.” Francis Mer (French Finance Minister) 22 October 2003. He
went on to say that the French had difficulty understanding how to
operate in such a system. His comments were in the light of
an extradition request by the US for four senior French financiers. The
request, 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. “The idea of saying I am guilty, just for appearance’s sake, of a crime I did not commit is intolerable. It’s a question of dignity” Francois Pinault, one of the bankers whose extradition to the US was refused by France, 22 Oct 2003
I would be grateful if you could consider what scope
you have for intervention under the terms of the Extradition Act,
to take action which will enable my consituent and his colleagues
to face these charges in this country rather than the United States
of America." "I am concerned that a grave injustice may be being perpetrated here" Letter from Sir Menzies Campbell to Prime Minister
Tony Blair regarding this case, August 2004
|