Jump to content

UK–US extradition treaty of 2003

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 188.223.5.83 (talk) at 00:29, 31 January 2012 (more cites). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Extradition Act 2003
Parliament of the United Kingdom
Long titleAn Act to make provision about extradition.
Citation2003 c. 41
Dates
Commencement1 January 2004
Status: Current legislation
Records of Parliamentary debate relating to the statute from Hansard, at TheyWorkForYou
Text of statute as originally enacted
A map of countries with whom the UK has extradition treaties. The UK is in green, category 1 countries are in blue, and category 2 countries are in red

The Extradition Act 2003 (c.41) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It came into force on 1 January 2004 and all import and export extradition requests submitted or received from this date are covered by the Act. It concerns itself with extradition to and from the UK in respect of all territories and in particular implements into UK law the 2003 US-UK Extradition Treaty.

Controversy

Controversy surrounds the US-UK extradition treaty of 2003 which was implemented in this act. It has been claimed to be one-sided[1] because it allows the US to extradite UK citizens and others for offences committed against US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK (see for example the NatWest Three), and there being no reciprocal right; and issues about the level of proof required being less to extradite from the UK to the US rather than vice-versa[2].

Among other provisions Part 2 of the Act: Extradition to category 2 territories (non-European Arrest warrant territories) removed the requirement on the USA to provide prima facie evidence in extraditions from the UK, requiring instead only reasonable suspicion.[3] This was necessary to redress the previous imbalance against the USA under the 1870 Act, as the UK did not have to provide the more onerous prima facie evidence to extradite from the USA. The requirement for the UK is to show probable cause. However, an independent legal review carried out by Sir Scott Baker found that "there is no significant difference between the probable cause test and the reasonable suspicion test. There is no practical difference between the information submitted to and from the United States.".[4]

There is also concern[weasel words] at the loss of entitlement of UK citizens to legal aid for maintaining an adequate defence to criminal charges once they are extradited to US jurisdiction where costs are largely met by the defendant's private means. This has been a cause of controversy in cases where it has been perceived that the UK has suitable legislation for prosecuting offences domestically[citation needed].

The manner of its implementation also caused concern because of alleged secrecy and minimal parliamentary scrutiny[2][5][6].

In response to these concerns, the Home Secretary Theresa May appointed The Rt Hon. Lord Justice Scott Baker to conduct an official review of the UK's extradition treaties, with the assistance of two independent extradition experts. The review was directed to address evidence standards and whether the US-UK Extradition Treaty is unbalanced[7]. Sir Scott Baker's report was presented to the Home Secretary on September 30, 2011, and concluded that there is no substantial difference in evidence standards, that the treaty is balanced and that there is not "any basis to conclude that extradition from the United Kingdom to the US operates unfairly or oppressively"[8][9] The review contradicts the findings of Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR), which called for the Government to renegotiate the UK's extradition treaty with the United States to ensure British citizens get the same protection as Americans.[10]

US ratification, 2006

The US-UK Extradition Treaty 2003 was first sent to the US Senate for approval in April 2004. But another component of the controversy noted above was a result of the delay of the US in ratifying it into US law. Baroness Scotland, UK Minister of State for the Criminal Justice System at the Home Office, travelled to the US on Thursday 13 July 2006 to address this problem. This move was prompted by political criticism of the Extradition Act 2003 within the UK and an opposition proposal to amend the Act in the House of Lords. It also coincided with public disquiet at the case of the NatWest Three who were extradited on the same date.[11] This meant the NatWest three were extradited to the US under the US-UK Extradition Treaty 2003, even though that treaty had not been ratified in the US.

On 30 September 2006 the US Senate unanimously ratified the treaty.[12] British Home Secretary John Reid said he was "delighted" that Baroness Scotland's visit to the US over the summer succeeded in getting Senate agreement.

John Reid:[13] "The treaty is an important measure in our fight against serious international crime".

Ratification had been slowed by complaints from some Irish-American groups that the treaty would create new legal jeopardy for PIRA terrorists who fled to the USA in the 1980s[14] and their American supporters.[15]

Cases where the Act has been applied

  • Gary McKinnon - appealing extradition for alleged hacking of U.S. military computers
  • NatWest Three - extradited to Texas on fraud charges, pled guilty to wire fraud
  • Babar Ahmad - awaiting extradition on charges of running web sites supporting the Chechen and Afghan insurgencies
  • Abu Hamza al-Masri - accused of conspiring with convicted American terrorist James Ujaama
  • Alex Stone - alleged child abuse, charges subsequently dropped after 6 months in US jail. According to Mr. Stone "there appeared to be no defence to extradition and no evidence at all was presented in this case".[16]
  • Ian Norris of Morgan Crucible - alleged price fixing (not a crime in the UK at the time). Extradition overturned by the House of Lords on appeal[17]. Subsequent extradition request on obstruction of justice charges approved in July 2008[18], extradited March 2010[19].
  • Wojciech Chodan and Jeffrey Tesler face extradition over their alleged role in a Nigerian bribery scandal, but argue that almost none of the misconduct they are accused of was connected to the US and that the alleged bribery plot took place mainly in the UK or Nigeria [20][21].
  • Richard O'Dwyer, extradition request made in May 2011. The extradition request follows the Southern District Court in New York bringing two charges against Richard O'Dwyer for criminal copyright infringement in relation to TVShack.net. The two charges, conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and criminal infringement of copyright, each carry a maximum sentence of five years.[22][23]
  • Christopher Tappin,extradition request made in 2010. Accused of selling batteries to be used in Iranian surface-to-air missiles. He was approached by US agents asking him to ship batteries from the USA to the Netherlands who sent paper work saying that permits were not required and then sought to have him arrested and extradited. A spokesman for Tappin's lawyers "This is a case in which the Customs agents caused the offence to be committed rather than merely providing an opportunity for the defendant to commit it."[24]

References

  1. ^ Binyon, Michael (2006-06-28). "Onesided treaty was meant to handle terrorist suspects". The Times. London. Retrieved 2010-05-02.
  2. ^ a b http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/factcheck+are+ukus+extradition+rules+lopsided/166700
  3. ^ "Hacker loses extradition appeal". BBC News. 2009-07-31. Retrieved 2010-05-02.
  4. ^ "US extradition law not biased against Britons - judge". BBC News. 2011-10-18. But Sir Scott's 486-page report finds: "In our opinion, there is no significant difference between the probable cause test and the reasonable suspicion test. "There is no practical difference between the information submitted to and from the United States."
  5. ^ http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debate/?id=2006-07-12b.1396.1
  6. ^ http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/analy18.pdf
  7. ^ http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/media-centre/press-releases/sir-scott-baker-review
  8. ^ "US extradition law not biased against Britons - judge". BBC News. 2011-10-18.
  9. ^ "A review of the United Kingdom's extradition arrangements". The Home Office.
  10. ^ "US extradition law not biased against Britons - judge". BBC News. 2011-10-18. The review contradicts the findings of Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR), which called for the Government to renegotiate the UK's extradition treaty with the United States to ensure British citizens get the same protection as Americans. In a report in June, the committee said US authorities should have to show enough evidence to establish probable cause before a Briton can be extradited.
  11. ^ "UK to act over NatWest 3 treaty". BBC News website. 2006-07-10. Retrieved 2008-09-12.
  12. ^ Torres, Carlos (2006-09-30). "Senate Unanimously Ratifies US, UK Extradition Treaty". Bloomberg L.P. Retrieved 2008-09-12.
  13. ^ "Reid welcomes US extradition move". BBC News. 2006-09-30.
  14. ^ Blair, William G. (1984-12-14). "U.S. judge rejects bid for extradition of IRA. murderer". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-09-12.
  15. ^ Torres, Carlos (2006-09-30). "Senate Unanimously Ratifies US, UK Extradition Treaty". Bloomberg L.P. Retrieved 2008-09-12. Ratification had been slowed by complaints from some Irish- American groups that the treaty would create new legal jeopardy for U.S. citizens who opposed British policy in Northern Ireland.
  16. ^ Stone-Lee, Ollie (2006-03-10). "Extradition fight man attacks law". BBC News. Retrieved 2010-05-02.
  17. ^ Hotton, Russell (2008-03-13). "Ian Norris wins appeal against US extradition". London: The Daily Telegraph.
  18. ^ Sean Farrell, Financial Editor (2008-07-26). "Norris loses US extradition battle but says he will appeal". London: The Independent. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  19. ^ http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/894c65ae-369a-11df-b810-00144feabdc0.html
  20. ^ Evans, Rob (2010-12-01). "Retired UK businessman faces extradition to US". The Guardian. London.
  21. ^ Evans, Rob (2010-04-20). "Retired sales executive to be extradited to US for Nigerian bribery trial". The Guardian. London.
  22. ^ Mitchell, Stewart (16 June 2011). "UK student vows to fight copyright extradition". PCPro. Retrieved 10 July 2011.
  23. ^ Masnick, Mike (17 June 2011). "Why IS the Justice department Pretending US Copyright Laws Apply In The UK?". TechDirt. Retrieved 10 July 2011.
  24. ^ "British businessman 'entrapped' by US agents". The Telegraph. London. 2010-08-17.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UK–US_extradition_treaty_of_2003&oldid=474128874"