Lord Levy & The Nat West Three

[WendyS]

Lord Levy, British citizen (and friend of Tony Blair) is allowed to fight his case here in the UK and try to prove his inocence.

Nat West Three, also British citizens, not allowed to fight their case here and prove their innocence.

Cherie Booth is a Human Rights Lawyer, Haven't heard her saying much to defend the Human Rights of the Nat West Three, have we?

[jake-the-peg]

I may have missed something here but why would Lord Levy be extradited to the US to face questions about loans for peerages?

I don't think the Americans are very interested in that.

They are however very interested in the collapse of Enron and their financial arrangements

[JudgeJ]

But, jake, like Lord Levy the Natwest Three are not being accused of any wrongdoing in the US, or of any behaviour detrimental to any US citizen or company. The three are accused of making over �1m each out of a complex fraud in which their former employer NatWest was an alleged victim. The allegation is that the three worked with an Enron executive in the US to perpetrate the fraud.

However, the wider issue is that even if they were accused of a crime in the US, the extradition �Treaty� which has been ratified by the UK but not, as yet, the US, allows British citizens to be arrested and extradited with no evidence having to be put before a UK Court. This is compounded by the extremely harsh bail regulations which prevail in the US. This means that the three may well be incarcerated for a lengthy period before their trial. Even if bailed, the bail conditions will be such that they will be unable to work or have access to the necessary people and documents to prepare their defence.

Organisations such as Amnesty, Fair Trials Abroad and others, as well as the well known professional Human Rights campaigners would be up in arms if these men were to be forcibly deported to any other country in such circumstances, particularly if they were foreign nationals. It is also debatable whether the UK would be allowed to forcibly remove an illegal immigrant from these shores if it was shown that he or she would face this situation.

The Treaty was designed to assist in the fight against terrorism. But once again we see legislation introduced for a specific purpose being inappropriately used.

Just ask yourself this: if these three were Iraqi bankers being extradited to Israel to face charges where a British company was the alleged victim, where Israel might (or might not) have a passing interest, and where no evidence had been produced in the UK to support the Israeli case, do you think they�d be on the plane to Tel

[JudgeJ]

Aviv (of course!)

[jake-the-peg]

I'm not disputing the inequity of the extradition treaty, just that the comparison with Lord Levy is extremely forced.

With regard to the treaty I think there are a 2 points.

Firstly it's current asymmetry - whilst that is obviously unsatisfactory it doesn't affect the status of people being extradited under it. Had the Americans ratified that would make no difference to this case.

What is more concerning is current American thinking on what counts as their Jurisdiction - It's said albeit in jest that if you've ever even flown over New York you're eligable to be arrested for a crime there.

Unfortunately it seems the situation is worse than that. Whilst nobody likes the possibility of terrorists sheltering behind extradition laws the terms of this treaty it seems this country is rolling over for the American administration as it has under Prime Ministers of all colours.

I do have to reflect though that this treaty far exceeds the provisions made in the EU-US extradition treaty, and this is a fine example where a pan -European foreign policy would have been beneficial