3. Extradition to the United States
Part 2; Extradition Act 2003
Read the relevant clause of the Freedom Bill
In March 2003, the then Home Secretary David Blunkett signed the deeply unfair Extradition Treaty between the UK and the USA. This removed the requirement on the United States to provide prima facie evidence (evidence which unless rebutted, would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact) when requesting the extradition of people from the UK. It maintained, however, the requirement on the UK to provide evidence to satisfy the US constitution’s ‘probable cause’ when seeking the extradition of US nationals. In other words, the US only has to provide a statement of the facts they hope to prove, while the UK has to establish probable cause. The Government had signed us up to a treaty which means that citizens of this country enjoy fewer protections regarding extradition than our American counterparts. They have a written constitution to protect them. We are not so fortunate.
The treaty was signed in March but only released to Parliament in May, just as MPs were leaving for the Whitsun recess. The resulting Extradition Act 2003 was pushed through the House by junior ministers without a word from the Prime Minister. The Act came into force in November and Article 69 allowed the Home Secretary to designate category 2 countries (non-EU) by way of Statutory Instrument. The resulting SI covered the United States, among some other countries with dubious human rights records, was rushed through just as Parliament was finishing for Christmas. When this came into force, it meant that the UK-US Extradition Treaty was signed and ratified with no prior debate and no parliamentary vote. It was signed in secret by The Home Secretary under royal prerogative powers. As further evidence of the treaty’s lop-sided nature, we signed it unilaterally – the United States did not even ratify it until 2006.
The Liberal Democrats have consistently opposed the extradition arrangements with America. We spoke and voted against the orders implementing our end of the treaty in December 2003 (with Sir Menzies Campbell taking the highly unusual step of speaking at a committee of which he was not a member to highlight our opposition). In 2006, we tabled a bill to restore the need for prime facie evidence to be provided by US authorities when requesting extradition and later that year, we supported amendments to the Police and Justice Bill that would suspend our implementation of the Treaty. We did so because we believe the Extradition Act is manifestly unfair to British citizens, such as in the Gary McKinnon case.
Put simply, the government signed an unbalanced treaty which threatens the interests of British citizens and those under our judicial protection. The Extradition Act 2003 has stripped away many fundamental principles of justice and eroded traditional protections against summary and unfair extradition. We should not be extraditing people to stand trial in a foreign country without evidence being presented to a British judge to prove there is a real (prima facie) case against them and the judge decides that it is in the best interests of justice to do so. The Government should immediately renegotiate the treaty to make the extradition test reciprocal. They should also introduce proper parliamentary scrutiny of treaties, and amend the royal prerogative so that international agreements can no longer be entered into without meaningful reference to Parliament.
[...] Renegotiate the unfair extradition treaty with the United States. [...]
In the highly unlikely event that members of security agencies from the United States of America come to my door with the intention of arresting me for alleged crimes against the United States, they will be regarded as kidnappers and treated as such.
It is unacceptable that powers from a foriegn country can remove a citizen of the United Kingdom from the United Kingdom without the presentation of evidicence in a British court of law.
I entirely agree with wh you say. This matter is however a trifle compared with the destruction of Britain’s corporate and private savings and pensions since Labour came to power, so no sector of the economy now has the reserves to keep it going through the inevitable downturn in the economic cycle. Surely the civil liberty of both private and corporate entitles them to make provision for a rainy day are more important, yet I see no sign that you have any proposals to raise the matter.
All extradition agreements should be equal on both sides. Yet another example of the UK rolling over to the us and playing the weakest partner on the global scene.
Complete scandal. Blair was the biggest US poodle of them all, complete waste of time. And he’s called a Middle East peace envoy ! Not sure Iraqis would agree.
It is patently obvious that the extradition agreement UK/USA is wrong and in contradiction to all UK senses of justice. It should be repealed.
It, unfortunately is only one of very many “level playing field” inconsistencies with our relationship with the USA.
Until the UK people are represented by MP’s elected only by the people and not “bought” by corporate interests thro’ election funding, there is little hope of stopping the destruction of citizens rights and social justice.
Hello Mr Borland,
I have not got any update or even anything interesting to say, I just need to say how I feel about this injustice that my wife children and many others must feel by being extradited without evidence and treated like fugitives.
This is not for a story it is so at least I was able to to say how I feel, I can never even begin to imagine how my wife and children feel. Our lives have been destroyed by this process that imprisons people without charge and takes away the Human Rights of people that has taken hundreds of years to put into place.
How we survive I do not know as the severe pressure on my family is and will be unforgettable, I watch Kerry my wife cry often when the children are at school or in bed and sometimes when ever she can’t control it.
I say all the right things, telling my wife and kids that we are going to win this fight and to send us to the US is unthinkable but I would like to believe that but all the evidence I have gathered and what we have been through Leeds me to believe that no matter how strong our arguments are the laws will be interpreted in a way that allows extradition.
Some have said even Gary McKinons Mum who I respect that the extradition act should be only for terrorists but if that was to happen then the US would only need to label anybody a terrorist and their extradition would be approved, the simple answer is this: whatever the allegation that is put to a UK citizen it must be backed up by “probable cause”
The US prison conditions especially while on remand leave most of the worlds Human Rights organisations against the US system of justice.
The US have the opportunity of a speed trial but only if you give up your rights to test all the evidence and have it analysed as in computer data and much more.
When you give up your right to a speedy trial you are in jail for as long as it takes sometime 3 and more years without any possibility of bail.
The Patriot Act in the US has been introduced to allow surveillance on anybody even journalists worldwide, and one thing is for sure is that our Labour Government has accepted this without question or legal authority to UK Government.
The Parliament servers have been monitored by the US for themselves or for the LAbour government either way it is wrong.
The UK are the only Government In the entire world that allows it Citizens to be sent to the US without evidence. One must ask why? Is it because the US hold information on the UK MI5 being involved in torture and the US are happy to threaten the UK government when it does not do as asked.
In a world were peoples lives are destroyed by the US extradition process and guilt must be the presumption or why would their lives be destroyed as innocent until proven guilty has always be the way of a democracy.
And for our government they do not even check to see how the UK citizen is being treated after extradition as they do not care or do the media.
The US under Obama has expanded his extraordinary rendition program and even names camps in the Middle East that hold these people, so what he gives with one hand he takes more away with another.
I am just a family man, but if remanded again I intend to go on a full Fluid and Hunger strike as I feel this will be the only way to bring the attention the this government to this barbaric extradition treaty with the US.
If I die then since we are being extradited as a package my wife should be free to start a new life if she can with the conditions that she suffers,
I have not gone into detail on our case case but if our case case is lost then the JR of Gary McKinnon will also fall and lead to no arguments left against extradition as we are fighting them all that have not been fought before.
Ben I would like to be a little more intellectual but I am very tiered and crumbling inside, yet once I was afraid of nothing and now I am afraid for my family.
We all know this is wrong but not enough people are coming out against the treaty and being vocal about it.
Thank you Ben for the coverage and I pray that justice will prevail,
Please keep this letter private for the time being.
Brian Howes.
I have always said if they try to extradite my wife they would lose the extradition act and if that is needed then I can do whatever is needed,
Is the proposal enough?
“The resulting SI covered the United States, among some other countries with dubious human rights records”
So why are you only proposing the US be removed? And why only from the SI? That way, it could be readily re-introduced.
A better solution, surely, would be to amend section 69 of the Act so that Schedule 2 countries could only be countries within the European Union covered by the EU Arrest Warrant.
I think we should consider the fact that the U.S. has wholly disproportionate sentences. It imposes life without parole on children, and also sentences children to death. Moreover, it has wholly unacceptable practices when considering obtaining evidence. For example, plea bargaining were a suspect can give evidence against another in exchange for leniency or exemption from prosecution, and if the prosecution decides to beleive the guilty party an innocent person may be put behind bars. What happened to corroboration?
If the Liberal Democrats are so opposed to the extradition arrangements with the United States, why then the support for European Arrest warrants, which require even less time and evidence to extradite a British citizen to any EU country. Do the Liberal Democrats think that a British citizen will be treated fairer by the Romanian or Bulgarian legal system than by the US legal system?
http://www.libdems.org.uk/home.....12226;show
[...] days extradite rapists and robbers on the run. Compare this to their "Freedom Bill": 3. Extradition to the United States | The Freedom Bill [...]
@JamesHarvey
Being part of the European Union guarantees certain basic rights will be granted to suspects, including British citizens. This is achieved in various formal and informal ways including the Charter of Fundamental Rights and European Council sanctions against offending member states.
Regardless of how strong the US justice system is – and I agree it’s probably stronger than the Romanian system – we don’t have the kind of guarantees we get for EU members.
James Harvey has already hinted at the point I wanted to make, scrapping the current arrangements with the US is one thing, but the European Arrest Warrant needs scrapping too.
Any corrupt small-town judge in a far-flung corner of Europe can now demand the arrest of a British citizen in Britain with no evidence presented to the British courts.
This is all part of the apparatus of ’security’ that is being used to erode our fundemental human right to a fair trial.
The way things are going it would not be beyond the realms of imagination for European governments to come up with spurious grounds to arrest each others citizens as a favour to get them out of the way.
The unlucky victim’s government could then make mealy-mouthed statements about ‘doing everything they can to assist but respecting another country’s legal process’ while a Briton rotted in a foreign jail.
[...] 3. Extradition to the United States [...]
A better solution, surely, would be to amend section 69 of the Act so that Schedule 2 countries could only be countries within the European Union covered by the EU Arrest Warrant.
[...] 3. Extradition to the United States [...]
Any corrupt small-town judge in a far-flung corner of Europe can now demand the arrest of a British citizen in Britain with no evidence presented to the British courts.
This is all part of the apparatus of ’security’ that is being used to erode our fundemental human right to a fair trial.