A retired businessman by the name of Christopher Tappin is to be extradited to the US for allegedly trying to sell batteries for Iranian missiles. Serious stuff, you might agree. But as I read in a long Times (of London) article on Saturday (behind a paywall and no, I am not writing it all out), one of the most disturbing features of this man’s indictment in absentia is that no attempt has been made to establish, in the UK, any sort of prima facie case that he might be guilty. Instead, a grand jury in the US has ruled, apparently, that he is suspected of being involved in something dodgy. As a result, he faces two choices: admit guilt and face a short, but nevertheless, tough prison term in the US and have a criminal record for the rest of his life, or, plead not guilty and take his chances in the US legal system and face a 35-year jail term, as well as bankrupt himself in trying to get legal representation.
Even worse than the abuse of due process involved (the man apparently was not even aware of the grand jury ruling) is that the UK government, despite some alarm being raised by MPs, seems quite happy to transfer British citizens to the US in this way without any significant legal safeguards. This is all of a piece with how, as I have written before, the US is also bullying other countries in the name of halting tax evasion by forcing foreign financial institutions to undertake all kinds of onerous compliance checks to ensure that all American clients are accounted for. What makes such issues so sensitive is that this appears to be a one-way street: far more Britons, it seems, are getting packed off to the US for various alleged offences than is the case with Americans being extradited to stand trial in the UK.
It is a good feature of friendly relations between countries that there should be mutual recognition of important principles. And the cavalier treatment of certain principles of due process of law in the extradition case of this Mr Tappin character is a sign that the extradition treaty of 2003 between the US and UK is not working as intended, is oppressive, and should be scrapped or significantly reformed without delay. There may not be many votes in this issue, but it is important.
A lot of articles have been written on this subject. Here is a good item in the Daily Telegraph back in 2009.
I suspect it’s working exactly as intended.
See, this is all part of the special relationship, where Britain gets treated just like any state in the union!
You have to be somewhat amazed at this practice given the way the British government obsesses about human rights.
The USA is currently trying to extradite megaupload.com people from here in NZ. It’s not obvious that this is going to work, for a number of reasons.
It’s not clear that what they are accused of is a crime in NZ.
It’s not clear how the US can claim jurisdiction over a German citizen living in NZ and running a Hong Kong company. Does the US somehow own the internet? That case hasn’t been made as yet.
Regarding the comment about tax evasion: The US had drawn up a list of actions they expect the Swiss banks to take whenever a US customer is involved. The goal of these actions is to ensure that any money deposited has been properly declared and taxed in the US. At one point, Switzerland made the obvious suggestion: “we’ll do it if you will”, i.e. a symmetrical and bilateral agreement. The response from the US was typical: “that would be far too difficult and onerous for our banks”.
On the subject of extradition: Any sovereign country should require a certain standard of proof, before even considering extradition. There is no reason to give into US bullying – this is an essential responsibility to one’s own citizens.
Specifically regarding NZ: Note that extradition here is irrelevant to the fate of MegaUpload. MegaUpload is now dead. Even if not extradited, the individuals involved have been punished by the destruction of a business worth many millions. No court proceedings or due process was involved. This is not justice, and is not how countries with an interest in justice should act.
As a result of this and other abuses (for a more recent example, Google: JotForm Secret Service), quite a number of international technology sites are seriously advising any company that runs a web-service to get *everything* out of the US. One simply cannot risk a business on the whims of out-of-control bureaucrats.
My understanding was that trial in absentia is utilized only after exhaustive attempts to bring the accused in to defend himself. This should also apply to grand jury indictments. If this principle has been abrogated, then I would very much like to see some coverage of the matter on this side of the pond as well.
Perhaps Paul Lockett comes closer to an underlying develpoment in the U S Criminal “Justice” System.
Whilst the functions of the entire legal system in the U S have continued a long-term change, the Criminal “Justice” System, has been co-opted, principally through legislative (political, non-judicial) process into one of the instrumentalities of social engineering, rather than its originating function or maintaining order in accord with the norms of the social organization as it evolves.
In addition to its other effects, this development has had a particular effect on the motivations and conduct of those engaged in the operations of “Criminal Justice.”
The greatest threat to individual freedom in the U S today is Prosecutoral Abuse.
Among the excressences of of those changes in systems and people are events such as referred to here.
Well named though. The US justice system is CRIMINAL.
There have been times where the US has used sealed indictments in order to not tip off that the person that the Feds are on to him. In theory, such indictments need enough proof of criminal activity to warrant a going to trial.
In practice, the old saw is that “you can indict a ham sandwich;” grand juries often are deferential to the prosecution. I’m not engaged in the case, but I’d suggest that the UK authorities check the evidence in the indictment before sending him across the pond.
Mark Bryan is essentially correct, what Britain should require for extradition is a substantial repeat indictment or presentation in the U K judicial system.
That “show us what you’ve got” has to be produced at trial in any event. Call for it first before E.X.
Byron – Bryan, sorry
This treaty is vile and should be scrapped – at once.
“But do you not trust the American Justice system?”
No I do NOT.
The Federal system is conviction machine – it uses unjust tactics and procedures to convict people. And often of things that are not real crimes anyway (under American financial leglislation almost any action or inaction can be ruled a “crime” if the government feel like it).
And American prisons are Hell holes -no person should be sent to them, particularly not people who have not been convicted of a crime. Even a totally innocent person may confess – after he is raped a few times in an American prison (“if you make a deal we will move you to a nice prison – it will be like Club Fed, but if you insist on claiming you are not gulity…….”).
However……..
I do not trust the British (especially the English and Welsh) “justice” system either.
Changes to such things as the way fraud trials are conducted are an outrage.
Indeed the changes to the legal system in this country (over the years) are one of the things I agree with he-who-shall-not-be-named about.
I would not send a British person to the American Federal system over alleged financial “crimes”.
And I would not send an American to the British (at least not to the English and Welsh) system for alleged financial “crimes” either.
“Oh this is just Paul Marks sounding off – what does a gate warden in an amusement park know anyway”.
The oldest Swiss bank (and the most important private bank) announced some years ago that it would no longer do business in the United States – and openly stated that its reason for this judgement was the disgusting nature of the perverted Federal “legal system”.
Are these Swiss bankers (from an institution that has never taken a bailout – unlike the Politically Correct bankers normally invited on to Bloomberg and CNBC) gate keepers at Wicky park?