This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/feb/24/britain-special-extradition-relationship

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Understanding Britain's special extradition relationship Understanding Britain's special extradition relationship
(40 minutes later)
David Cameron appeared to hint this week that the Cabinet battle on the future of the much-criticised UK-US treaty, which underpins the extradition of the retired businessman Christopher Tappin, is not over yet. David Cameron appeared to hint this week that the cabinet battle over the controversial UK-US treaty, which underpins the extradition of the retired businessman Christopher Tappin, is not yet finished.
The future of Britain's extradition arrangements is no academic matter. In the next fortnight or so the supreme court will decide whether Wikileaks' Julian Assange should be sent to Sweden on a European arrest warrant. The future of Britain's extradition arrangements is no academic matter. In the next fortnight or so the supreme court will decide whether Wikileaks' Julian Assange should be sent to Sweden on a European arrest warrant. While in the next two or three months, the home secretary, Theresa May, will make a final decision on the medical evidence as to whether Gary McKinnon, the computer hacker with Asperger's syndrome, should be sent to stand trial in the US.
In the next two or three months, the home secretary, Theresa May, will also take a final decision on the medical evidence whether to send Gary McKinnon, the computer hacker with Asperger's syndrome, to stand trial in the US. At almost the same time May will formally respond to the review of Britain's extradition arrangements by Sir Scott Baker, who effectively gave both the UK-US treaty and the European arrest warrant system a clean bill of health.
At almost the same time May will formally respond to the review of Britain's extradition arrangements by Sir Scott Baker, who effectively gave both the US treaty and the European arrest warrant system a clean bill of health. In opposition, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats campaigned strongly against the "lopsided" treaty and repeatedly criticised the arrest warrant system. Indeed, a 2006 move to give British judges in extradition proceedings the power to decide whether a case would be better heard in Britain – the "forum amendment" – was backed by every senior member of the current coalition cabinet.
In opposition, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats had both campaigned strongly against the "lopsided" US/UK treaty and repeatedly criticised the Euro arrest warrant system. It was anticipated that Scott-Baker would come down firmly behind this change. But when his review was published last October he did no such thing. He said the treaties were balanced and fair and argued that prosecutors were far better placed to decide in which country a trial should be held.
Indeed, a 2006 move to give British judges in extradition proceedings the power to decide whether a case would be better heard in Britain – the so-called "forum amendment" – was backed by every senior member of the current coalition cabinet. It was anticipated that Scott-Baker would come down firmly behind this change. Burt when his review was published last October he did no such thing. He said the treaties were balanced and fair and argued that prosecutors are far better placed to decide in which country a trial should be held.
In her initial response to Scott-Baker, the home secretary gave every impression that she would leave things as they were, with some minor tinkering as recommended by the judge. But at prime minister's question time this week, Cameron seemed to hint that the battle was not yet over. He told protesting Tory MPs that the Tappin case showed why a "proper, sober, thoughtful review needs to take place".In her initial response to Scott-Baker, the home secretary gave every impression that she would leave things as they were, with some minor tinkering as recommended by the judge. But at prime minister's question time this week, Cameron seemed to hint that the battle was not yet over. He told protesting Tory MPs that the Tappin case showed why a "proper, sober, thoughtful review needs to take place".
The prime minister said May was examining Scott-Baker's findings carefully, but she would also "take into account the views of parliament that have been expressed in recent debates". He appeared to be raising the prospect that fundamental reform may yet be on the agenda. The prime minister said May was examining Scott-Baker's findings carefully, but she would "take into account the views of parliament that have been expressed in recent debates". He appeared to be raising the prospect that fundamental reform may yet be on the agenda.
But back at the Home Office the view is that it is "highly unlikely" that May could now adopt a "forum bar" solution, as that would involve the wholesale rejection of Scott Baker – whom she herself appointed to review the extradition arrangements. But the Home Office view is that it is "highly unlikely" that May could adopt a "forum bar" solution, as that would involve the wholesale rejection of Scott-Baker – whom she herself appointed to review the extradition arrangements.
The Americans have bilateral extradition arrangements with 120 countries. All but three require evidence to be provided in support of extradition requests. The three exceptions are France, Ireland and the UK. As at least one legal commentator has pointed out, France is not obliged to extradite its own citizens, Ireland will not despatch anyone whose case can be heard in an Irish court, leaving only Britain. Look at it as another aspect of the "special relationship". The Americans have bilateral extradition arrangements with 120 countries. All but three – France, Ireland and the UK – require evidence to be provided in support of extradition requests. As at least one legal commentator has pointed out, France is not obliged to extradite its own citizens, Ireland will not despatch anyone whose case can be heard in an Irish court, leaving only Britain. Look at it as another aspect of the "special relationship".