On Tuesday October 24, Parliamentarians will be urged to provide greater protection for British citizens who may be extradited to face criminal charges abroad.
The human rights group Liberty, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, Justice and others have written to Parliamentarians ahead of a crucial Commons vote which would allow British courts greater discretion in determining if British nationals could be tried in UK courts rather than sent to face trials abroad.
Liberty’s Policy Director Gareth Crossman said:
“The Government has failed us by sending British citizens who could be tried here to face lengthy trials in an unfamiliar system, away from their families and often imprisoned. To make matters worse, the system is biased as British citizens are extradited far more easily than US nationals.”
Since the controversial Extradition Act came into force in 2004, the US government has requested the extradition of nearly 50 Britons.
Jen Corlew on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128
NOTES TO EDITORS
On 24 October 2006, the House of Commons will vote on the Lord’s amendments to the Police and Justice Bill which would allow the court – in a case where the alleged crime took place partially in the UK – to determine whether trial in the state requesting extradition would be in the interests of justice.
On 19 October 2006, Parliamentarians received a letter from Liberty, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the Bar Human Rights Council, Alistair Graham (solicitor for Ian Norris), Alun Jones QC, Justice, and Gareth Peirce requesting their support for the amendments. For a copy of the letter contact
jenc@liberty-human-rights.org.uk Home Office statistics show that the US government has made 47 extradition requests since January 2004. The UK government has made 12 requests of the US.
Liberty intervened in the case Government of the United States of America v Bermingham, Mulgrew and Darby, to argue that removal to the United States would engage Article 8 of the Human Rights Act which protects the right to respect for a private and family life. Liberty argued that the interference with family life caused by removal to the United States must be disproportionate if shown to be unnecessary through the ability to dispose of the case to the United Kingdom. The three were sent to the USA in July 2006.
Liberty Briefing- The Extradition Treaty 2003:
The UK's extradition laws have been radically overhauled in recent years. The Extradition Act 2003 created a system of fast track processing of extradition applications. This means that British citizens can be removed from the UK to many jurisdictions without the need for a court to hear that there is any evidence against them. The United States is one country where the fast track process has been introduced. However, we do not think that debate over extradition should focus on the US and the non reciprocal nature of our extradition procedures as this might allow principled debate to be construed as anti Americanism. In any case, summary extradition should not take place from any state.
Liberty does not believe anyone should be removed from the United Kingdom without a British Court being satisfied that there is evidence. When we argued this during the passage of the Extradition Bill the government responded that the removal of safeguard would be balanced by the introduction of a protection that no-one would be removed from the UK if doing so would breach their human rights.
When extradition proceeding were taken against the Natwest 3 Liberty intervened in the High Court. We argued that this human rights protection meant that if a case could be tried in the United Kingdom, it would breach rights to a family life if someone were taken overseas. No-one should face the prospects of being held in an overseas prison awaiting trial, away from family and friends, if they can face trial in the UK. The growing international and multi-jurisdictional nature of the criminal law means that cases of this type will become increasing common.
Liberty also argued that the positive duties imposed by the Human Rights Act 1998 should require the prosecuting authorities to take steps to see if prosecution were possible. We do not believe that nearly enough has been done to bring proceedings against the Natwest 3. Writing in the Financial Times on 10 July Baroness Scotland said 'It is for the prosecuting authorities to consider whether a case should be heard in the UK.' We would argue that when a failure to do so will result in a person instead facing trial on the other side of the world, the state should do more than 'consider' but take positive steps to see if prosecution is possible. We would also remind Parliamentarians that when considering criminal charges, the UK prosecuting authorities need to consider not only the evidence, but also the public interest. There appears to be no public interest test in relation to extradition.
Unfortunately the case is not proceeding to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords which means that there will not be an opportunity to put forward these arguments.
Parliament urgently needs to review the grounds for permitting extradition and the protections against unfair extradition. In particular there is a need to address
The lack of evidence needed to permit extradition
The lack of an obligation in domestic law requiring a case to be heard in the UK if possible.
