The UK Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Ian Norris, the former head of Morgan Crucible plc, has been published and is available online:
The Times reports: Industry chief loses six-year US extradition battle
This case yet again shows how the Extradition Act 2003 makes it, in practice, impossible for Judges to apply the Human Rights Act / European Convention on Human Rights Article 8 (""Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.") to appeals in Extradition cases.
However they seem happy enough to do so, in cases of Expulsions or Deportations under Immigration laws or for convicted foreign nationals.
This is bad news for the Gary McKinnon case, which is to be Judicially Reviewed in May.
For no good reason the UK Supreme Court Law Lords also seem unwilling to defend British sovereignty, in cases, like that of Ian Norris or the NatWest 3 bankers (referred to as the Bermingham case in this Judgment) or, of course, Gary McKinnon, where someone could be been tried in a British Court, rather than a United States one.
67. Extradition proceedings should not become the occasion for a debate about the most convenient forum for criminal proceedings. Rarely, if ever, on an issue of proportionality, could the possibility of bringing criminal proceedings in this jurisdiction be capable of tipping the scales against extradition in accordance with this country's treaty obligations. Unless the judge reaches the conclusion that the scales are finely balanced he should not enter into an enquiry as to the possibility of prosecution in this country.
Why ever not ? There is no universal principle of international law that demands this at all, and many countries do not allow extradition of their nationals to foreign jurisdictions under any circumstances - they conduct a trial in the home country.