PresRDC

Well, I'm not an expert on U.K. extradition law and, since I am not a British subject, it really is none of my business, but it does seem like a valid concern.

hfly

Jeez, as noted above:

1) Plea bargaining exists in EXACTLY the same fashion in the US as in the UK.
2) As stated above anti-competition laws are also pretty draconian in the UK.
3) The extradition treaty is completely bilateral and the same conditions apply in both directions, (unless of course you believe the pathetic pleas of the criminal Enron bankers).
4) the concept of maximum sentencing for an offense applies in most countries, as stated above it is rarely enforced.
5) Martin George is/was an arrogant ...... that personally screwed every single person on this board and deserves no sympathy.

CT-UK

1. Agree
2. Agree
3. My understanding of this is that the US do not have to show any evidence to a UK judge to request the extradition. It does not work the same the other way around, we have to show a US judge the evidence to prove our case. I am sure others will add more meat to my very simple summery of what I have read / heard. Ok this could now bw wrong as it looks like on Sep 7th 2006 the US Senate signed the treaty so we have equal powers.. I read this on an Irish American site.4. Agree
5. No idea, don't know the man.

BAHumbug

Agree with 1, 2, 4, 5. But I think 3 is not yet ratified - I suspect that the conditions for the UK to extradite are more onerous than for the US to extradite.

I'm not certain of this, however, so if someone KNOWS better I'd love to find out !

BAH

hfly

AFAIK it is now bilateral, hence why I wrote what I wrote.

JonNYC

If that's the case, what a spectacular example of about rant/bash first (pretty much unanimously)-- inconvenient, annoying facts later.

The Saint

The treaty was finally ratified by the US in September 2006.

Wikipedia suggests:

"The extradition arrangements between the U.S. and the UK are highly unequal. It is comparatively easy to extradite British citizens to America. In contrast it is difficult to extradite Americans to Britain."

ajax

Erm, but the British government did agree to the treaty, didn't it? My gut reaction is to say that if you don't like it, don't blame America, blame our elected leaders.

edi-traveller

Well they are to blame for more or less everything else.........

hfly

Was the wiki entry written by the Irish (pro-IRA) groups that have been so vehemently against it?? Never quote Wikipedia as a real source as it will often make you look like an idiot.

BAHumbug

I certainly wasn't blaming America - I blame the UK government for signing the treaty in the first place.

But it does seem that the treaty is now bilateral from what others have written.

BAH

PhilH

Just to clarify, my protest here is entirely against the UK Government. The US has a right to take whatever action it feels appropriate against those it perceives as criminals. It is up to the UK Government to protect UK citizens and provide them with their appropriate rights. I do not believe that this treaty does that and I strongly want it to be repealed.

I believe any foreign government (outside of the EU for which I believe special rules apply under EU law) which wishes to extradite a UK citizen from the UK should provide prima facie evidence for the crime they have supposedly committed, and allow that UK citizen to be able to know and understand the evidence against him and provide a defence to it, before they are extradited off to some foreign jurisdiction. Full stop.

NickB

Well, there is not entirely full reciprocity, as requests to the US must establish a probable cause under Art 8(3)(c) of the Treaty whereas extradition to the US is more or less automatic.
But, in any event, the reciprocity element is not, imo, the core issue. The very notion of extradition without any review of the evidence by the Court allowing the extradition is the real problem, whether there is reciprocity or not. On this, I think that Liberty have got it right.

jhm

And if prima facie evidence is provided (which may be voluminous for white collar crime) and a defence given, who's to decide ? Doesn't that sound like a trial here in the UK in circumstances where perhaps only foreign laws have been broken ?

PhilH

I believe NickB's post just before yours answers this point perfectly.
I accept the case before where clever defence lawyers could delay and delay extradition procedures for a very long time, but the answer to that was not to abrogate everyone's rights and make extradition to the US virtually automatic.