Another Extradition Play to the Gallery

Assessing the New Legislation on Extradition, with Andrew Southam, The Commentator, July 2, 2013. "Campaigners have long argued that Britain should have a “forum bar” that would limit the extradition of individuals from Britain to other jurisdictions. In April, they got their wish. The Crime and Courts Act introducing the forum bar, with other measures, received Royal Assent on 25th April 2013. The issue now is whether these measures improve the effectiveness of Britain’s extradition arrangements, including those with the United States, or whether they are a misguided attempt to play to the public gallery."

Another Reason for Britain to Leave the ECHR

European Court Errs in Decision on Terrorist Suspect Extradition, with Andrew Robert James Southam, Heritage Foundation Issue Brief #3930, May 7, 2013. "The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has given an interim ruling that Britain cannot extradite Haroon Aswat to the United States. Aswat has been indicted in the U.S. on conspiracy charges related to the establishment of a terrorist training camp for radical Islamists in Bly, Oregon in 1999. By this decision, the ECHR, unless its decision is overturned, will have done significant damage to the Anglo-American extradition system, and to the ability of both sovereign nations to try and punish serious offenses, including terrorism."

Defending the US-UK Extradition Treaty

Why the US-UK Extradition Treaty is Good Law, ConHome, September 17, 2012. "Hard cases make bad law, the saying goes, and some of the cases that have attracted British attention – and condemnation -- to the 2003 Extradition Treaty between the U.S. and Great Britain are indeed hard. But not all of them are. Indeed, most extraditions from Britain to the U.S. – and all of them from the U.S. to Britain – excite no public controversy at all. The Treaty deserves more than to be condemned by anecdote; it deserves to be examined on its merits."

The Tappin Extradition Case

A Few Home Truths About Extradition from the United Kingdom, The Commentator, March 2, 2012. "As Mr. Grieve has conceded in one of his more sensible reflections, the Tappin case is controversial because Mr. Tappin appears to be an eminently respectable man. Unfortunately, it is possible for a man to appear to be respectable, and even to be the President of the Kent Golf Union, and still to be creditably accused of a serious crime. If Mr. Tappin is found innocent, there will be no public outcry in the U.S. But if the U.S. trial proceeds fairly – as I believe it will – and especially if he is found guilty, I trust there will be public and government recognition in Britain that the critics were wrong, and that the extradition system – and the American system – works."

Defending the U.S.-U.K. Extradition Treaty

Tensions Ahead Over U.S.-U.K. Extradition Treaty, Heritage Foundation Foundry, April 11, 2011. "It’s a common-sense idea that criminals should not be able to escape justice in one country simply by fleeing to another. In this Internet age, it’s also common sense that citizens of one country should not be able commit crimes electronically in another without fear of punishment. This is the problem that extradition is intended to solve."

Labour Got What It Wanted In US-UK Extradition Treaty

Don’t Blame US for This ‘Wretched’ Treaty Saga, Yorkshire Post, September 29, 2010. "The simple fact is that Labour thought extradition from Britain was too hard. It acted, domestically and internationally, to make it easier, both for the EU and for many countries, including the United States. The Left thought this was a brilliant idea. Now everyone is shocked that extradition from Britain is easier. But that was the point of the exercise. Only one thing has not changed: the US still gets most of the blame."

The U.S.-U.K. Extradition Treaty

The U.S.-U.K. Extradition Treaty: In the Interest of Both Nations, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #2456, August 30, 2010. "Extradition treaties serve an essential function in cases that cross international borders. When the United States delayed ratification of the 2003 extradition treaty between the United States and Great Britain, the delay was heavily criticized in Britain. More recently, the ratified treaty has come under intense criticism in Britain. But the perceived problems are not inherent in the treaty or the fault of the U.S.; they stem from the fact that the past Labour government deliberately set out to make it easier, both bilaterally and through use of the European arrest warrants (EAWs), for foreign nations to extradite individuals from Britain. At the same time, Britain’s acceptance of EU judicial supremacy and the consequent erosion of British sovereignty mean that it is now harder to extradite a terrorist than it is to extradite individuals accused of less serious offenses. The new British government should defend British liberties and put an end to privileges for accused terrorists by asserting its sovereignty and creating a “reasonable basis” minimum standard for all extraditions—a standard that, though incompatible with the EAWs, is compatible with the 2003 treaty."