Extradition from the UK to the US—Agog

It’s hard to imagine that anything is getting done in the United Kingdom as extradition concerns seem to be dominating the headlines there at the moment.

For one thing, the House of Commons is holding “an emergency debate on the extradition” of the NatWest Three.^[1] At issue is the “failure of the U.S. government to ratify a treaty setting out revised extradition arrangements between the two countries.”^[2] The debate will not have any real effect for the NatWest Three, but one Liberal Democrat MP, Nick Clegg, said that it is “vitally important that ministers come to the House to answer questions on this lopsided treaty they have tried to brush under the carpet.”^[3] Adding to the controversy are amendments offered by the House of Lords, which we discussed last week, “that would remove the U.S. from a group of countries allowed to extradite suspects from Britain without producing evidence of a crime.”^[4] The point of the debate, says Lord Mayhew—a Conservative former attorney general—is to send a message “that the Brits are not patsies.”^[5]

While the UK debates the propriety of sending bankers to the United States, an entirely different extradition controversy has hit the High Court. Babar Ahmad and Haroon Rashid Aswat argue on appeal that “there was a ‘real risk that they would be exposed to fundamental injustice’ if they were sent to the United States.”^[6] The argument has failed in the past, because US authorities gave assurances “that they would not seek the death penalty, put the men before military tribunals, or declare them ‘enemy combatants.’”^[7] They argue, however, that “the judges should not rely on assurances given by the US that the men would be treated fairly.”^[8] The United States argues that the UK can rely on the assurances, and the hearings continue tomorrow.^[9]

All the controversies surrounding extradition from the United States, including Gary McKinnon,^[10] Ian Norris,^[11] and other upcoming extradition controversies, pretty well have destroyed Prime Minister Tony Blair’s “proposal to set a maximum time limit for future terrorism extradition cases.”^[12]

Finally, the site which served as the starting point for many of these cases, and countless others, will close its doors for good on Friday. The Bow Street Magistrates Court has been sold to developers and will be converted into a luxury hotel and museum.^[13] Located in Covent Garden since 1881, the court has seen spies, accused terrorists, bankers, and even Oscar Wilde and Jeffrey Archer walk through its doors.^[14]

---

[1] U.K. Parliament Sets Debate on Bankers’ Extradition, Bloomberg, Jul. 11, 2006.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Peers Back Extradition Suspension, BBC News, Jul. 11, 2006.
[6] Jull Lawless, 2 Britons Appeal Extradition to U.S. on Terrorism Charges, AP (via Boston.com), Jul. 11, 2006.
[7] Id.
[8] Terror Suspects “Fear for Rights”, BBC News, Jul. 11, 2006.
[9] Id.
[10] See, ”Hacker” to Lodge Extradition Appeal, The Guardian (UK), Jul. 10, 2006.
[11] See Jane Merriman, UK Bankers’ Extradition Could be First of Many, Reuters, Jul. 11, 2006.
[12] Jason Bennetto et al., Blair’s Plan to Speed Up Extradition in Terrorism Cases is Shelved, The Independent (UK), Jul. 11, 2006.
[13] Judge Laments Bow Street Closure BBC News, Jul. 11, 2006.
[14] Id.