Blocked Transfer Draws Attention to U.S.-U.K. Extradition Treaty

October 18, 2012

World Politics Review on October 18, 2012 released the following:

“By Catherine Cheney

On Tuesday, the British government announced that it would not extradite British hacker Gary McKinnon to the United States, marking the first time an extradition has been halted under the 2003 Extradition Act between the U.S. and the United Kingdom.

McKinnon, who is accused of serious crimes including hacking American military databases, has fought extradition for the past 10 years. But in light of new evidence about his health, British Home Secretary Theresa May, the government’s top authority on domestic affairs, cited McKinnon’s human rights as her main consideration. Extraditing McKinnon would put him at high risk of suicide, she said.

Trend Lines spoke to two experts about perceptions of the treaty, which has at times generated controversy, especially in the U.K.

“In the significant, overwhelming majority of extradition treaties, the requesting country is required to show probable cause that the individual probably committed the crime with which he has been charged,” explained Douglas McNabb, a senior principal for McNabb Associates and an expert in U.S. federal criminal law and international extradition.* “In the U.S.-U.K. treaty, the U.S. is not required to show probable cause. All the U.S. has to do is show a copy of the indictment and the arrest warrant and request that the individual be sent to the U.S.”

On the other hand, McNabb said, if the U.K. sought to have someone extradited from the U.S. to the U.K., the U.K. would be required to show probable cause.

According to McNabb, the treaty was negotiated because the Bush and Blair administrations “wanted to make it easier for the U.S. to have terrorists extradited from the U.K. to the U.S., so they provided for this expedited extradition process,” he said.

The fact that the significant majority of people extradited from the U.K. to the U.S. have been white-collar criminals, not terrorists, he added, has created a rift between the two states.

However, Ted Bromund, senior research fellow in Anglo-American relations at the Heritage Foundation’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, argued that much of the controversy surrounding the agreement is because it is “misunderstood and mischaracterized” in the U.K.

“It is useful to bear one simple fact in mind: it was Britain that wanted the 2003 treaty, not the U.S.,” Bromund wrote in an email to Trend Lines. “When the U.S. delayed ratifying the treaty, Britain criticized [Washington]. Now many in Britain condemn the very treaty they wanted, which came as part of a long, and completely British, effort to reform their extradition system.”

Most extraditions to and from the U.S. are completely uncontroversial, Bromund explained. McNabb, too, referred to five terrorism suspects who were extradited from the U.K. to the U.S. earlier this month, noting that at the time, “we did not hear anything about this treaty being unfair.”

Bromund said that while the McKinnon case has generated controversy, he does not see any serious risk of fallout for the treaty.

“In the McKinnon case, the U.S. made a perfectly legal extradition request. Britain has (finally) decided not to extradite him, not because of anything wrong with the U.S. or its request, but because Mr. McKinnon is mentally ill,” he explained. “Britain has the right to decide that, so the subject is now closed.”

Both experts pointed to the news that the U.K. plans to create a forum bar as being more significant. In cases where prosecution would be possible both in the U.K. and abroad, the forum bar would enable British courts to block prosecution overseas.

“What upsets those in the U.K. is that if the majority of the criminal conduct occurred in the U.K., as compared to the U.S., then their thought is that these guys ought to be tried in the U.K.,” McNabb said.

“We have seen the U.S. take a very aggressive approach extraterritorially,” McNabb said. Over the past decade, some defendants have raised concerns, and attracted attention, for being “shipped off to the U.S.” for crimes they committed at home. Over time, McNabb said, these cases, combined with the perceived inequality of the treaty, put enough pressure on the British to make some changes.

Bromund expressed concern over the creation of the forum bar.

“Depending on how this is worded — and that is important — this could require British courts to discriminate in favor of British subjects, and thus against foreigners, when considering extradition requests,” he said. In the past, Bromund explained, everyone has been equal before the law in the U.K., with the nationality of the accused making no difference as far as extradition goes. The forum bar could change that, he said.

While the U.K. home secretary has called the 2003 deal “broadly sound,” introducing the forum bar would be a major change to the law, something both experts said is worth keeping an eye on.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
International Extradition Lawyers Videos:

International Extradition – When the FBI Seeks Extradition

International Extradition – Wire Transfer – Email – Telephone Call

————————————————————–

We previously discussed the extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom here.

————————————————————–

To find additional global criminal news, please read The Global Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.

————————————————————–

International criminal defense questions, but want to be anonymous?

Free Skype Tel: +1.202.470.3427, OR

Free Skype call:

           Office Locations

Email:


Gary McKinnon extradition to US blocked by Theresa May

October 16, 2012

BBC News UK on October 16, 2012 released the following:

“British computer hacker Gary McKinnon will not be extradited to the US, Home Secretary Theresa May has announced.

Mr McKinnon, 46, who admits accessing US government computers but claims he was looking for evidence of UFOs, has been fighting extradition since 2002.

The home secretary told MPs there was no doubt Mr McKinnon was “seriously ill” and the extradition warrant against him should be withdrawn.

Mrs May said the sole issue she had to consider was his human rights.

She said it was now for the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, to decide whether he should face trial in the UK.

Mrs May said: “Since I came into office, the sole issue on which I have been required to make a decision is whether Mr McKinnon’s extradition to the United States would breach his human rights.

“Mr McKinnon is accused of serious crimes. But there is also no doubt that he is seriously ill.

“He has Asperger’s syndrome, and suffers from depressive illness. The legal question before me is now whether the extent of that illness is sufficient to preclude extradition.

“After careful consideration of all of the relevant material, I have concluded that Mr McKinnon’s extradition would give rise to such a high risk of him ending his life that a decision to extradite would be incompatible with Mr McKinnon’s human rights.”

Mrs May also said measures would be taken to enable a UK court to decide whether a person should stand trial in the UK or abroad – a so-called forum bar.

It would be designed to ensure extradition cases did not fall foul of “delays and satellite litigation”, she said.

“I believe extradition decisions must not only be fair, they must be seen to be fair. And they must be made in open court where decisions can be challenged and explained,” she said.

“That is why I have decided to introduce a forum bar. This will mean that where prosecution is possible in both the UK and in another state, the British courts will be able to bar prosecution overseas if they believe it is in the interests of justice to do so.”

Mr McKinnon, from Wood Green, north London, who has been diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism, faced 60 years in jail if convicted in the US.

Mr McKinnon’s mother Janis Sharp was delighted with the decision, saying: “Thank you Theresa May from the bottom of my heart – I always knew you had the strength and courage to do the right thing.”

His MP, David Burrowes, who had threatened to resign as a parliamentary aide if Mr McKinnon was extradited, welcomed the decision.

Mr Burrowes, Conservative MP for Enfield Southgate in north London, tweeted: “Compassion and pre-election promises delivered today.”

BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman said it was a dramatic decision – the first time a home secretary had stepped in to block an extradition under the current treaty with the US.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil rights group Liberty, said: “This is a great day for rights, freedoms and justice in the United Kingdom.

“The home secretary has spared this vulnerable man the cruelty of being sent to the US and accepted Liberty’s long-standing argument for change to our rotten extradition laws.”

Mark Lever, chief executive of the National Autistic Society, said he was “delighted that the years of waiting are finally over for Gary and his family”.

But Labour former home secretary Alan Johnson criticised the decision and claimed Mrs May had made a decision which was “in her own party’s best interests but it’s not in the best interests of this country”.

He said: “Gary McKinnon is accused of very serious offences. The US was perfectly within its rights and it was extremely reasonable of them to seek his extradition.”

Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper asked Mrs May about the implications of her decision: “Clearly other people subject to extradition proceedings or immigration proceedings do cite medical conditions as a reason not to extradite so it would be useful for Parliament and the courts to understand the tests you have applied and whether that will set precedent in other cases.”

American lawyer, David Rivkin, a former White House adviser, said the decision was “laughable”, adding, “Under that logic, anybody who claims some kind of physical or mental problem can commit crimes with impunity and get away with it.”

US extradition expert Douglas McNabb said the US Attorney’s Office would be furious and he suspected it would ask Interpol to issue a red notice – making other nations aware there was an outstanding arrest warrant for Mr McKinnon in the US – which would mean he could be arrested if he left the UK.

The family of terror suspect Babar Ahmad said while they welcomed the decision not to extradite Mr McKinnon, questions had to be asked.

Mr Ahmad was one of five terror suspects, including radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri, extradited to the US earlier this month. His co-accused, Talha Ahsan, who was also extradited, was diagnosed with Asperger’s in June 2009, according to a European Court of Human Rights judgement.

Both are accused by US authorities of running a pro-jihad website.

Mr Ahmad’s family said: “Why within the space of two weeks, a British citizen with Asperger’s accused of computer-related activity is not extradited, while two other British citizens, one with Asperger’s, engaged in computer-related activity are extradited. A clear demonstration of double standards.”

US authorities have described Glasgow-born Mr McKinnon’s actions as the “biggest military computer hack of all time” and have demanded he face justice in America.

They insisted his hacking was “intentional and calculated to influence and affect the US government by intimidation and coercion”.

The Americans said his actions caused $800,000 (£487,000) worth of damage to military computer systems.

Mr McKinnon has previously lost appeals in the High Court and the House of Lords against his extradition, but two years ago a High Court judge ruled Mr McKinnon would be at risk of suicide if sent away.

Earlier this year Mrs May put the decision on hold to allow Home Office appointed psychiatrists to conduct an assessment.

They also concluded Mr McKinnon would be likely to take his own life if he was sent to face trial in the US.

Mr McKinnon was arrested in 2002 and again in 2005 before an order for his extradition was made in July 2006 under the 2003 Extradition Act.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
International Extradition Lawyers Videos:

International Extradition – When the FBI Seeks Extradition

International Extradition – Wire Transfer – Email – Telephone Call

————————————————————–

We previously discussed the extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom here.

————————————————————–

To find additional global criminal news, please read The Global Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.

————————————————————–

International criminal defense questions, but want to be anonymous?

Free Skype Tel: +1.202.470.3427, OR

Free Skype call:

           Office Locations

Email:


Richard O’Dwyer: I Saw What They Did To Christopher Tappin, And I’m Scared

March 26, 2012

Huffington Post (UK) on March 26, 2012 released the following:

By: Dina Rickman

“A 23-year-old Briton facing extradition to America on copyright charges has spoken out about his fears in a rare interview, saying he could spend months waiting for trial in a high-security jail.

Student Richard O’Dwyer, who is appealing against being sent to the US, told The Huffington Post UK he was scared he would end up in a maximum-security institution with no bail, and said he didn’t deserve to be imprisoned.

“Yes, I am scared, I have seen in the media what they did to Chris Tappin [the 65-year-old British busisnessman recently extradited to the US] and how he has been put straight into jail with no bail,” Richard said.

Tappin is currently in prison in New Mexico, America, waiting for trial over allegations he plotted to sell arms to Iran.

“I have no criminal record and don’t think I deserve to be imprisoned for what should be a civil matter if anything. In the UK if I was charged with any offence I would not be put in jail for such a matter,” O’Dwyer said, via email.

“I am trying to stay positive and most importantly I want to complete my university degree.”

Richard’s mother Julia, who is appealing after Home Secretary Theresa May signed his extradition order this month, said she was in a “state of panic” when she heard her son could be put on trial in the states.

The mother-of-two has become an “accidental campaigner” against the controversial UK-US extradition treaty since Richard faced extradition to America over claims his website TVShack.net linked to pirated material.

“You’re not fighting any crime here, you’re fighting the law, the extradition law. You don’t get a chance to fight the allegation,” she told The Huffington Post UK.

However Julia – who still does her son’s washing when he returns from university in Sheffield to report for bail – is not angry at Richard: “I’m angry at the government.

“The police are just doing their job, they were just told to do that when it all came from America. I’m not at all angry at Richard, I’m even less angry than I might have been [if he had not been facing extradition] because I am more angry at the government.

“Maybe we’re closer together, a little bit. He doesn’t want to bother about it, you see, much. It’s just a major inconvenience to him,” she said.

“I see him every week. I usually bring his laundry back, I usually do it on the day he goes to bail so I can give him a lift for that. Sometimes he comes home for the weekend anyway. He has to report to a police station every week, whenever I see him I will take away his laundry and next time I’ll see him I will take a bit back. That’s what you do when your kids are at uni, you know.”

O’Dwyer has received support from the families of two other British men facing extradition, Tappin and computer hacker Gary McKinnon.

Julia is now calling for action on the “flawed” legislation, rather than more reform.

“Our government has failed to make a difference to a law that was pushed through the backdoor with no parliamentary scrutiny. Now we’re living with the consequences.

The government has sold him down the river. They’re doing it to other people. This law was put in place by the Labour government in the Queen’s prerogative with no parliamentary scrutiny. This government has promised to look at it and amend it before they came into power and they have done nothing about it except talk about it.””

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
International Extradition Lawyers Videos:

International Extradition – When the FBI Seeks Extradition

International Extradition – Wire Transfer – Email – Telephone Call

————————————————————–

We previously discussed the extradition treaty between the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) here.

————————————————————–

To find additional global criminal news, please read The Global Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Theresa May to review UK extradition treaty with US

February 22, 2012

The Guardian on February 22, 2012 released the following:

“Home secretary to lead thorough review of extradition treaty following anger at recent deportations, David Cameron says

Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent

Theresa May, the home secretary, will conduct a “proper, sober, thoughtful review” into Britain’s extradition treaty with the US amid anger at a series of deportations, David Cameron has announced.

The prime minister told MPs the home secretary would take account of the views of parliamentarians after he was asked about the case of Christopher Tappin.

The retired company director from Kent is due to be flown to the US on Friday to face allegations of selling arms to Iran. Tappin, 65, admits shipping batteries that can be used in Hawk air defence missiles but says he thought they were for use in the car industry. He said he had no idea about their eventual destination.

Tappin’s case was raised by his MP, Jo Johnson, at prime minister’s questions on Wednesday. Johnson, the MP for Beckenham and brother of the London mayor, Boris Johnson, said: “US marshals will on Friday escort my 65-year-old constituent Chris Tappin from Heathrow to a jail in Texas, where he will face pressure to plea-bargain in order to avoid lengthy incarceration pending a financially ruinous trial for a crime he insists he did not commit.

“Could the prime minister say what steps he is considering to reform the US/UK extradition treaty that been so unfair to the likes of Gary McKinnon and now my constituent, Mr Tappin?”

The prime minister indicated the government would not block the extradition of Tappin. He said: “I quite understand why [he] raises this case of his constituent. In the case of Chris Tappin obviously he has been through a number of processes including the magistrates court and the high court. The home secretary has thoroughly considered his case.”

Cameron cited an independent report last year by Lord Justice Scott Baker, which said that the 2003 Extradition Act was not “lopsided” or biased against British citizens. Critics have said that the act, drawn up in haste after the 9/11 attacks, is unfair because British citizens do not enjoy the same level of legal protection as US citizens.

Gary McKinnon, the alleged computer hacker who has Asperger’s syndrome, faces extradition under the treaty.

The prime minister said: “[Jo Johnson] raises the point more generally of Sir Scott Baker’s report into the extradition arrangements, which he has made and we are now considering. He did not call for fundamental reform.”

But Cameron said May would lead a thorough review of the extradition treaty. “The home secretary is going to carefully examine his findings and also take into account the views of parliament that have been expressed in recent debates.

“Of course balancing these arrangements is absolutely vital. But I think it is important that at the same time we remember why we enter into these extradition treaties, which is to show respect to each other’s judicial processes and make sure that people who are accused of crimes can be tried for those crimes and Britain can benefit from that as well. So a proper, sober thoughtful review needs to take place and this case shows why.””

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
International Extradition Lawyers Videos:

International Extradition – When the FBI Seeks Extradition

International Extradition – Wire Transfer – Email – Telephone Call

————————————————————–

We previously discussed the extradition treaty between the United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) here.

————————————————————–

To find additional global criminal news, please read The Global Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


US-UK Extradition: The law explained

December 13, 2011

BBC on December 5, 2011 released the following:

“MPs have urged the government to reform the UK’s extradition arrangements to better protect British citizens.

In a backbench debate in Parliament, a Commons motion calling for change was passed without the need for a vote.

Extradition between the United States and the UK is set out in a 2003 Treaty, which later became part of domestic law in both countries.

Extradition from the US to the UK
When the UK sends an extradition request to the US, it is received by the US State Department via the British Embassy in Washington.

A State Department lawyer looks at the request and assesses whether it conforms to the 2003 Treaty that underpins extradition between the two states.

A critical test, set out in the treaty is that the British request must include “such information as would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offence for which extradition is requested.”

This requirement does not apply to requests submitted by the US to the UK.

The Department of Justice also examines whether there is “probable cause” to justify the request.

This test comes from the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution which states that people cannot be arrested unless the authorities have “probable cause” for their action.

So, once a suspect has been arrested, they can challenge the lawfulness of the request.

If the request is ruled lawful, the Secretary of State takes the final decision after considering human rights issues – such as whether the suspect could be denied a fair trial or face inhumane treatment.

The Home Office’s massive review of extradition says that the US has not refused any extradition requests since the treaty came into force.

Extradition from the UK to US
The process begins when a US prosecutor obtains an arrest warrant with the approval of the domestic courts.

In England and Wales, the Crown Prosecution Service acts on behalf of the US in taking the case through the courts.

Once the police have arrested the suspect, the courts must decide whether or not the US has met the tests required for an extradition to take place. This is a fairly technical hearing in which the lawfulness of the request is examined.

The US does not need to provide all the evidence in a case, as if the allegations were being tested in a full trial by British judges.

What this comes down to is proving to the courts that there is reasonable suspicion – essentially the hurdle police need to jump to justify an arrest – but obviously short of what is necessary to get a conviction.

Are the tests the same?
The 2003 Act effectively made it easier for the US to seek the extradition of someone from the UK because the US would no longer need to provide a “prima facie” case to British courts – proving your case on the face of available evidence.

Campaigners say this is unjust because someone can be extradited without the case being properly tested. But supporters of the treaty and the related British 2003 Act argue that the removal of the prima facie test simply means that suspects face the same broad test in each country.

The Home Office’s extradition review argued that there was no real difference between the US tests of “probable cause” and the introduction of “reasonable suspicion”.

The panel said that both tests amounted to the basic standard of proof used by police officers in both countries to make an arrest.

But critics say that’s a red herring. Campaign group Friends Extradited says the real issue of imbalance is that while the US courts don’t allow an extradition until a judge has examined the quality of the evidence, because of the constitutional rights of the suspect, a British judge is merely examining the quality of the application – not the case the individual faces on arrival in the US.

Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights said in its June 2011 report on extradition that the burden of proof for extradition should be increased – but the US argues that that it cannot ask the UK to hand over a suspect unless its request has already met the same test in its own courts.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
International Extradition Lawyers Videos:

International Extradition – When the FBI Seeks Extradition

International Extradition – Wire Transfer – Email – Telephone Call

————————————————————–

To find additional global criminal news, please read The Global Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Guy Savage: Alleged Global Arms Smuggler, Fights Extradition to US

October 27, 2011

To his neighbors, Guy Savage was just another well-to-do resident of suburbia. Now he’s fighting extradition to the US as an alleged global arms smuggler

Gubblast.com

Guy Savage has operated in the US and UK for a number of years and had government contracts.

The flash of stun grenades and the crack of tires being blown out are not usually associated with the tree-lined streets of Pinner, North-West London. But this is what the residents of Daymer Gardens experienced earlier this year, when their neighbor, an apparently inoffensive businessman living in an £800,000 home, was unveiled as an international arms dealer wanted by US police on smuggling charges.

Guy Savage, a married father-of-two and a former pupil at the exclusive £5,000-a-term Highgate School attended by Michael Mansfield, QC, and the former Home Secretary Charles Clarke, is now facing extradition to the US over allegations that some of his work selling weapons there broke the law.

One neighbor – a 44-year-old hairdresser who has lived on Savage’s road for 10 years – said the images of his arrest and his subsequent extradition hearing couldn’t be further from the everyday activities of the quiet, family-orientated community.

“We are all shocked. It’s not the sort of thing to happen in your road – it’s very, very quiet here,” she said.

“On the day, my two children were in bed asleep and I was out walking the dog. I returned to find absolute pandemonium. Police cars, vans and undercover cops everywhere.

“He seemed like a nice enough neighbor – he didn’t seem like an arms dealer,” she added.

But then not many people would have been able to spot his profession. He appeared just another middle-class professional going to work among the bankers and lawyers who live in the area.

Savage, 42, is the owner of Sabre Defence Industries, which has divisions in the US and the UK. He was also previously chairman of the Firearms Dealers Committee, which acts as a voice for his industry and advises Scotland Yard on gun licensing laws.

Despite his position, Savage was seized after the US authorities contacted the Met, alleging that he had been illegally exporting weapons between America and Britain.

Detectives went on to raid the weapons factory he ran a short distance away in Northolt, where they found an arsenal of automatic rifles, handguns and ammunition rounds.

Savage now faces being extradited to the US to stand trial for allegedly exporting weapons in crates with false bottoms and forging shipping records.

At a hearing at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on Monday, Savage claimed he would be denied a fair trial if extradited and sentenced to life in an “inhumane” US jail.

“They [the US authorities] want to use me as a means to extort money from a sovereign individual and potentially imprison me for the rest of my life,” he said.

“The US justice system is open to everyone in the same way the Ritz is open to everyone for tea.”

He added: “The Met have subjected me to inhumane and degrading treatment and punishment for a crime that is yet to be proven.”

Sabre Defence Industries had been trading in America for some time with a £125m contract to supply the Government with automatic rifles. But the Met says Savage came under suspicion after the US authorities began investigating his employees for selling weapons to gang members in 2009.

In a raid on the company’s premises in Nashville, Tennessee, police found documents which suggested guns had also been smuggled from the UK to the US.

The Met’s Detective Sergeant Nathan Coutts, who led the investigation from London, said: “The case came to us in May 2010. The US claims there were irregularities of firearms and their components being shipped from the UK to the US and the other way round.

“The firearms were all subject to licenses but they were being shipped illegally. The fact you’ve got a license doesn’t give you carte blanche to do what you like.”

Savage has been indicted by a US federal grand jury on charges relating to international firearms and trafficking violations. If found guilty on the more serious charges he faces 20 years in prison and a $1m fine.

Savage caused outrage in 1996 when he blamed families of the Dunblane massacre victims for ruining his livelihood.
He was banned from possessing and trading in guns in 1994 after a large collection of prohibited weapons was found at premises in St John’s Wood.

Judge Nicholas Evans said he would give a written ruling on the extradition on 30 November.

This article was written by Sanchez Manning and published by the Independent on October 26, 2011.

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
International Extradition Lawyers Videos:

International Extradition – When the FBI Seeks Extradition

International Extradition – Wire Transfer – Email – Telephone Call

————————————————————–

We previously discussed the extradition treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom here.

————————————————————–

To find additional global criminal news, please read The Global Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


US Extradition Law Not Biased Against Britons

October 18, 2011

Laws governing the extradition of Britons to the US are fair, an independent review has concluded.

It follows high-profile cases, including that of Gary McKinnon, the alleged hacker who has been fighting extradition to the US for years.

The review, led by the former Court of Appeal judge Sir Scott Baker, says the treaty “does not operate in an unbalanced manner”.

But Gary McKinnon’s mother Janis Sharp said the finding as a “whitewash”.

Home Secretary Theresa May commissioned the review – but it calls for her to be stripped of powers to determine extradition requests on human rights grounds and to let courts decide instead.

Sir Scott’s report also says some criticism of the Extradition Act is based on a “misunderstanding” of how it works in practice.

The former judge also found the European Arrest Warrant system does not operate “unfairly or oppressively”.

“No significant difference”

“There is no practical difference between the information submitted to and from the United States,” Sir Scott Baker.

Several ministers criticized the Extradition Act 2003 while in opposition and the review follows widespread concern that the system is biased against Britain.

They argue it is unfair for the US to require “sufficient evidence to establish probable cause” before agreeing to extradite anyone to the UK, while Britons are denied the same protection.

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.”

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.

“Unacceptable”

Nine cases, including those of Abu Hamza and Babar Ahmed, are still awaiting rulings, including two which involve allegations dating back to 1997.

“Delays of this kind are, in our view, unacceptable; they are unfair to the individual and militate against the prospects of a fair trial,” the report says.

The family of Babar Ahmad, a counter-terrorism suspect held in jail for seven years contesting extradition to the United States, is among those who had called for a rethink.

Mr. Ahmad’s e-petition to government, asking to face trial in the UK, has recently gained enough signatures to make the top 10.

Ashfaq Ahmad, the suspect’s father, said: “In June 2011, the Joint Committee on Human Rights expressed concern about Babar’s case. That British Citizens accused of committing crimes in the UK can be extradited to the US in cases where the CPS has found no evidence to charge them in this country, completely undermines our criminal justice system.”

Figures released in the report show between January 2004 and July 2011, there were 130 requests by the US for people to be extradited from the UK, compared with 54 requests from the UK to the US.

A total of seven US requests were refused by the UK, compared with none of the UK’s requests.

But Sir Scott points out that the US population is about five times that of the UK.

The human rights group Liberty says it rejects Sir Scott’s report and is urging the government to ignore it.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, says: “We don’t just disagree with this review but are completely baffled by it.

“This is not a court judgment, merely policy advice – and government cannot abdicate its responsibility to honor the promises of both Coalition parties in opposition.

But US Attorney General Eric Holder, who met the panel during their work on the review, said the “fundamental fairness of the treaty has been demonstrated by its application during the years the treaty has been in force”.

“The treaty has enabled us to work closely with our partners in the United Kingdom to pursue the interests of justice in both our nations.”

The home secretary said she would consider the report’s recommendations carefully.

This article was published on October 18, 2011 by BBC News.

To find additional global criminal news, please read The Global Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition and OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal.

The author of this blog is Douglas McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,525 other followers