The Rt. Hon. Scott Baker's review of Extradition has now been published, (a month or so after it was promised).
Before you rush to judgement, you should actually read the full text of the review, a mere 488 pages:
You can download a (,pdf) file from the Home Office
A REVIEW OF THE UNITED KINGDOM' EXTRADITION ARRANGEMENTS(Following Written Ministerial Statement by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of 8 September 2010) Presented to the Home Secretary on 30 September 2011
The Home Office website seems to be overloaded (they really have no clue about the internet) , so if you are having difficulty with that, we have a copy mirrored here:
There are references to some of the iniquitous high profile extraditions cases e.g. Gary McKinnon, Bermingham (the NatWest3 bankers), Ian Norris, Babar Ahmad. and the extraordinary case of Farid Hilali (which Justice Scott Baker has personal involvement with).
However each of these cases is only partially cited, in order to bolster the flawed recommendations of the report and there is no proper evaluation of each of these cases merits and demerits.
Very significantly, there is no mention of the word "internet" in this document, especially when dealing with the concept of "legal forum". i.e. under which legal jurisdiction an alleged cross-border crime should be tried.
Section 6 of the report dealing with "Forum" is just utterly wrong !
Why on earth are "prosecutors" supposedly able to determine the question of "legal form" better than anyone else ? The Crown Prosecution Service has a history of incompetence, especially with any case involving the internet or, in fact, anything technological or scientific at all c.f. the utterly fictitious and non existent "Red Mercury" terrorism case involving the undercover antics of the News of the World.newspaper.
The Scott Baker report claims, possibly correctly, that there is not much narrow legal difference between the judicial standard of proof of "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" test between the UK and and US judicial systems.
But that misses the point entirely.
What it utterly fails to address is that under the wretched Labour government's Extradition Act 2003, there is no longer any opportunity for the UK accused to have their lawyers cross examine the alleged evidence or allegations brought against them by the US authorities. resulted in the grossly exaggerated claims of nearly 1 million dollars financial damage (the embarrassment damage to the reputation of the US military was obviously huge, but not measurable in terms of financial damage) being laughed out of court. That would have probably made the alleged crimes not even serious enough to merit Extradition in the first place.
To claim that there is no difference or inequality between USA requests for Extradition from the UK and vice versa is astonishingly perverse. If a the UK authorities want to extradite someone from the USA, they have to provide evidence which is subjected to cross examination by the defendants' lawyers. The reverse is simply not true in UK Extradition proceedings to the USA.
All the appeal court judges etc. have never been allowed to pronounce upon the admissibility or sanity of these allegations during the Extradition Act 2003 box ticking procedures, which prevent any actual consideration of the substance of the allegations or any witnesses etc. from being cross examined.
It is irrelevant whether or not Appeal Court Judges etc have been briefed on the detailed substance of the case, there has never yet been an opportunity for Gary McKinnon's lawyers to cross examine any of the evidence or witnesses against him.
The document does list various sources of oral and written evidence given to the panel, but it manages to exclude any mention of our email of evidence to the panel
Unless the Conservative Home Secretary Theresa May wants to be condemned by history as indistinguishable from her authoritarian and inept Labour predecessors, she should ignore most of the recommendations of this peculiar report, except for removing herself from any Extradition matters whatsoever and leaving that to proper UK Courts, where the accused can actually cross examine the alleged prima facie evidence against them.
Elle Hart, Elec.Eng.Tech.
One ventures to speculate on how one person or even a group of 12 people could possibly make any decision that affects an entire civilization. That theory and practice is destined to failure, abuse and corruption. As outlined in "WHITE-COLLAR CRIME - A 20TH-CENTURY CRISIS". It is obviously evident that laws, legislation and law enforcement are elements of convenience serving the few rather than instruments of justice serving the many. Gary McKinnon should have been seen as a military asset initially, instead, a small group of individuals that lack vision created this phenomenal injustice.
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=49880
Eochaidh MacDhalaigh OghaChruithne
I read the abstract at the web-page cited above by Elle Hart on 10-23-2011. Corporations control the U.S.A. primarily through having paid for the election of its members of Congress. Corporations now have more power than nation-states. That's why the governments of nation-states can't protect their citizens like Gary from rogue nations like the U.S. Governments are currently set up to deal with other governments or their citizens, but not corporations that engage in criminal activities even though in America, under the law, corporations have the same rights as natural persons.
The solution is to make corporations democratic. Two possibilities are: 1) Allow only the employees of businesses that have incorporated to elect the officers and board of governors (directors) or 2) after the share holders have elected the officers and governors, a simple majority of the workers must approve the elected officers and directors. In either case, capitalists would still have the right to invest their money in companies that they think will return a profit and not invest in companies they think are losers. They could also use their money to start their own businesses if they thought no business on the New York Stock Exchange was doing it right.
In either case, employees would have a say in their destiny. If the incorporated business Gary is now working for decides to lay off him and 500 other workers, complaining to the Prime Minister or Mayor of London or Gary's MP won't do anything to keep his and their jobs. But, democratizing corporations would prevent a very few rich people from controlling and destroying the destiny of 7+ billion human beings.
If Gary lived in a democracy no 1 person or 12 people would be able to push Gary around.
Also, there would be a place for the Labour Party and unions in a democratic Britain. If Gary objected to his lay off, even though he voted for the millionaire C.E.O. who is firing him, he could still have a right to appeal with the help of his union or if his case was an outrage, the Labour Party could step into the fray.
The bottom line is that in our post Nation-State world, Gary has lost his human rights and political rights. Because corporations are now more powerful than Nation-States, if Britain would democratize business, Gary would have back his human and political rights and he would not be extradited. That's the solution. Occupying Wall Street or rioting in Athens is a waste.