UK to review extradition laws to protect its citizens
Published: 08 September, 2010, 08:44
Edited: 10 September, 2010, 09:31
TAGS: Crime, EU, UK, Human rights, Law, USA
The UK government is preparing to reclaim some of its lost power by reviewing extradition treaties with the US and EU that allow its citizens to be shipped abroad for trial without evidence proving their guilt.
Under the current laws, countries that want to extradite British citizens do not have to provide any evidence of their guilt in the crime for which they are wanted.
“If you stand in that court accused of something, it might be totally absurd. There’s nothing that a British court can do to stop you being extradited – very, very limited powers to stop it,” explained member of the European Parliament Gerard Batten, who says the problem is that British courts are not allowed to review evidence against those wanted for extradition.
After years of fighting, it is a small victory for Janis Sharp, whose son Gary McKinnon is wanted in the US for hacking into the Pentagon’s computers. McKinnon has been granted a stay of extradition, and if the review gives Britain’s legal system more power to protect its citizens, he may not have to face decades in an American jail.
“The waiting is very difficult,” said Janis Sharp. “Every second you are at heightened stress, so I have prepared him that it might mean a longer wait. But he agrees, as long as the outcome is good. Also, if the treaty is changed and it helps everybody, then at least something has been achieved, and you’ll feel it wasn’t all for nothing.”
The treaty with the US was put into place following 9/11, to expedite the extradition of terrorists. Critics of the treaty claim it is one-sided, as Britain does not have the same privilege of extraditing US citizens without proving the individual may have committed the crime. So far, only one person is believed to have been handed over to the US on suspicion of terror, as the treaty has been mainly used against businessmen accused of fraud and minor offenders.
“I think it has been abused because the one type of person we don’t extradite to America are terrorists, because we don’t agree with the way they treat terrorists,” explained Karen Todner, who is one of the UK’s top extradition lawyers, involved in most recent high-profile cases.
“I do believe America takes advantage of the weak position Britain is in, in relation to this extradition treaty.”
Todner says she has dealt with cases where people have been enticed to travel to the UK from abroad just to be requested for extradition immediately upon their arrival.
The upcoming review will examine five areas of the 2003 Extradition Agreement, including the relationship with the US, and the European Arrest Warrant.
More than a thousand people were seized by UK police last year on orders from the EU or the US – double the number of the previous year.
British lawyers say many European states have imposed conditions on extradition to protect their citizens, whereas the UK has no such “opt-outs”. A large proportion of extraditions to the EU are for minor offenses, which may not even be considered crimes in the UK. The financial burden of such handovers is also significant. Calls for a review of the situation intensified last year, after Germany refused to extradite a doctor who had accidentally killed a patient while working in the UK.
The reviewing panel, comprised of lawyers and international relations experts, is due to report next summer. For now, British citizens will still be at risk of being extradited with no evidence, under a law that even the man who signed it, former Home Secretary David Blunkett, now admits “gives too much away.”
08.09.2010, 02:32
1 comment
US bailouts failing to help most AmericansTwo years and $148 billion dollars later, the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has not helped most Americans. |
08.09.2010, 08:49
4 comments
Iraqi war turns into laughing stock for someAn American soldier serving in Iraq has sparked controversy after video footage of his pranks was posted on YouTube. A discharged sergeant planted grenades in locals' cars at check points just to see their reactions. |
Johnx, Spot on, Do you want to add the other 39 names just from Russia, and then go through all the other countries that the UK is harbouring criminals from, many out and out terrorists fully shielded by 'the establishment' (I like that phrase - new one for me, thanks!). But then again there is a character limit in these comments. BTW the UK courts not only have establishment bias externally against nations, but they have internal establishment bias against individuals and segments of their own community. But that's for another day, when we can discuss the modern British notion of the criminal justice team, where police,prosecutors,judges(including magistrates) and politicians link up to form courts of conviction for the 'enemy' for finacial gain. Whilst working in other ways to circumvent the law being applied to themselves, the 'elite', be that through perverting coroners and other courts, abusing process, arbitary law, tampering with evidence, expert manipulation or plain rigging of trials.
@JG Boris Berezovsky and any number of terrorists and criminals involved in terrorist attacks around the world working for and protected by British intelligence and the establishment including those linked to the 9/11 attacks like Abu Qatada who was also linked to the millennium bomb plot was in the pay of MI6. @Count Cash Bad news Britain should be on the list of state sponsored terrorist states that is the premier country where terrorists operate and conduct attacks against numerous countries including Russia and the US who are connected British intelligence or allowed to operate freely with full government and political immunity












@JohnX I'm sure JG can defend him/herself, but just in case s/he doesn't come back here, I believe JG was referring to British nationals being tried in UK courts on behalf of foreign govts, not foreign nationals being harboured by Britain. I completely agree with you that they do, but just to clarify with regard to the point of the article.