Jump to content

Blunkett signs unpublicised treaty with Ashcroft


Recommended Posts

On newsnight last night:

 

David Blunkett has signed a treaty with the Director of Homeland Security in the US, John Ashcroft. He did it three months ago on his visit there, but the signing of the treaty was not widely publicised or reported

 

Basically the treaty says that the US can now extradite UK citizens without having to provide Prima Facie evidence for a crime having been committed. Extradition hearings for the US now only have to establish the identity of the person, and no evidence of any wrongdoing at all need be provided for the extradition to be approved.

 

And it is retrospective too, so people that the US have failed to extradite before, because there was no evidence, can now be extradited anyway, because evidence is not a prerequisite anyway.

 

Bizarrely the treaty does not run both ways. If the UK wishes to extradite a US citizen, then Prima Facie evidence must be presented to the US extradition hearing.

 

Not even the Europeans have this kind of power over UK citizens. Anyone of us (like Mr Bond in south africa) could now be extradited to Texas (where they have a really red-hot legal system :roll: ) whilst your Government idly watches by as you are executed because your defence lawyer was asleep throughout.

 

you can watch the newsnight program here since I cant find any mention of it on the website (help me anyone?)

 

According to Menzies Campbell, Parliament must still ratify the treaty, so it can be thrown out, but the chances of that happening are about the size of the labour majority to one. Write to your MP maybe, I have emailed Claiborne (sports minister who once declared something to be "like Wimbledon is to football")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this BBC article but this places the emphasis on us not extraditing people who face the death penalty:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2920563.stm

 

We could all email our MPs, the sheffield.gov.uk site has them listed. I'll ask mine about this, it's a bit worrying.

 

PS your MP's name is Richard Caborn, I think Claiborne was a Stephen King character, then again...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by maxt

I found this BBC article but this places the emphasis on us not extraditing people who face the death penalty:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2920563.stm

 

We could all email our MPs, the sheffield.gov.uk site has them listed. I'll ask mine about this, it's a bit worrying.

 

PS your MP's name is Richard Caborn, I think Claiborne was a Stephen King character, then again...

rofl

indeed.

I wonder what dolores will make of my email

rofl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

On newsnight last night:

 

David Blunkett has signed a treaty with the Director of Homeland Security in the US, John Ashcroft. He did it three months ago on his visit there, but the signing of the treaty was not widely publicised or reported

 

Basically the treaty says that the US can now extradite UK citizens without having to provide Prima Facie evidence for a crime having been committed. Extradition hearings for the US now only have to establish the identity of the person, and no evidence of any wrongdoing at all need be provided for the extradition to be approved.

 

And it is retrospective too, so people that the US have failed to extradite before, because there was no evidence, can now be extradited anyway, because evidence is not a prerequisite anyway.

 

Bizarrely the treaty does not run both ways. If the UK wishes to extradite a US citizen, then Prima Facie evidence must be presented to the US extradition hearing.

 

Not even the Europeans have this kind of power over UK citizens. Anyone of us (like Mr Bond in south africa) could now be extradited to Texas (where they have a really red-hot legal system :roll: ) whilst your Government idly watches by as you are executed because your defence lawyer was asleep throughout.

 

you can watch the newsnight program here since I cant find any mention of it on the website (help me anyone?)

 

According to Menzies Campbell, Parliament must still ratify the treaty, so it can be thrown out, but the chances of that happening are about the size of the labour majority to one. Write to your MP maybe, I have emailed Claiborne (sports minister who once declared something to be "like Wimbledon is to football")

 

European countries may not have the power to Extradite right now but I believe if Britain joined the EU this ruling would be passed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

On newsnight last night:

 

David Blunkett has signed a treaty with the Director of Homeland Security in the US, John Ashcroft. He did it three months ago on his visit there, but the signing of the treaty was not widely publicised or reported

 

Basically the treaty says that the US can now extradite UK citizens without having to provide Prima Facie evidence for a crime having been committed. Extradition hearings for the US now only have to establish the identity of the person, and no evidence of any wrongdoing at all need be provided for the extradition to be approved.

 

And it is retrospective too, so people that the US have failed to extradite before, because there was no evidence, can now be extradited anyway, because evidence is not a prerequisite anyway.

 

Bizarrely the treaty does not run both ways. If the UK wishes to extradite a US citizen, then Prima Facie evidence must be presented to the US extradition hearing.

 

Not even the Europeans have this kind of power over UK citizens. Anyone of us (like Mr Bond in south africa) could now be extradited to Texas (where they have a really red-hot legal system :roll: ) whilst your Government idly watches by as you are executed because your defence lawyer was asleep throughout.

 

you can watch the newsnight program here since I cant find any mention of it on the website (help me anyone?)

 

According to Menzies Campbell, Parliament must still ratify the treaty, so it can be thrown out, but the chances of that happening are about the size of the labour majority to one. Write to your MP maybe, I have emailed Claiborne (sports minister who once declared something to be "like Wimbledon is to football")

 

In the past I have had little Joy in trying to have any effective dealings with Caborn on Sporting issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Lickszz

European countries may not have the power to Extradite right now but I believe if Britain joined the EU this ruling would be passed.

Which Ruling are you talking about??

 

Extradition is not a power, it is done by agreement, and often some tit for tat.

 

At least those extradtion agreements [with other EU countries] are reicprocal - and UK has extradition treaties with most of them. And UK has already joined the EU a while ago.

 

European countries to a man threw out this US 'offer' - even Croatia said no, you cannot automatically extradite our citizens with presenting prima facie evidence of some kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

Which Ruling are you talking about??

 

Extradition is not a power, it is done by agreement, and often some tit for tat.

 

At least those extradtion agreements [with other EU countries] are reicprocal - and UK has extradition treaties with most of them. And UK has already joined the EU a while ago.

 

European countries to a man threw out this US 'offer' - even Croatia said no, you cannot automatically extradite our citizens with presenting prima facie evidence of some kind.

 

I wouldn't say it was an agreement as such but more of a Exercise of Power. Yes, there are treaty's between countries, a prime example been Spain which was a notoruious hide out for British Criminals and others.

 

Perhaps the law has already been passed which I am referring to. This is the European Arrest Warrant. This was originally menionted back in February and I expected this to become a factor around the time Britain took on the Euro.

 

My point is that you can't say it's done by agreement if these directives have come into place from Europe. With cases involving a EAW where a country that has applied for extradition would require interpretation by the courts to determine where a particular offence took place. For instance you could committ a crime in another country via a internet chatroom while not breaking any laws in your own country and still be face been extradited with your own country been forced to excercise the power. This of course would force dual criminality and any offense which you could be extradited for would surely have to be a crime in the UK?

 

With reference to this recent Treaty with the US. As far as I am aware if it's the same treaty I am thinking this was signed sometime at the end of March. Are you sure that the system doesn't work the same both ways? I'd be quite alarmed by that if this was the case. As I understand it Politicians would still have the right to block any extradition requests which would include suspects that could face the death penalty. Apparently the main reason for signing this treaty was to actually bring UK/US procedures more in line with extradition arrangements to European countries. Yes, It removes the need for prima facie evidence but still requires a detailed statement of the facts of the case to be provided before a suspect can be sent to the US. This treaty is supposed to mean better/closer co-operation and cut out red-tape which has allowed criminals to exploit loopholes in order to impede justice. The old treaty is thought to have been outdated and in need of a refresh. I expect that the emphasis been on computer crimes, as these were unlikely to exist when the original treaty was drawn together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.