Downing Street Says » Natwest 3

Asked what the Prime Minister had meant when he said he would look into the issue of bail in the United States for the "Natwest 3" and how that squared with the promise not to interfere in the legal process, the PMOS said that that was a fair question. In terms of interfering in this particular case nothing had changed. There was a legal process which would continue. However the Prime Minister was aware that there was concern by the families of these individuals that because the defendants were from the UK they might not be considered for bail in the US for obvious reasons. Therefore he had asked officials to look and see whether those concerns, should they arise, could be dealt with. That was not interfering with the individual cases but simply trying to reassure families about what would happen if those circumstances arose around bail.

Asked what assurances the Prime Minister was looking for, the PMOS said that there were two different aspects here. One was allowing normal legal proceedings to go forward. The other was if the question of bail arose and the fact that the people accused were from the UK became a factor in the bail hearing, then was there anything we could do to ensure that what would normally apply in bail hearings for US citizens in the US or in bail hearings in this country for that matter, would also apply here. Those were issues which were being examined.

Asked if that meant that while they were bailed they would at least be considered to be allowed to return to the UK, the PMOS said that he hoped people understood his drift. Put to him by the Telegraph that drift was not a particularly useful word, the PMOS said that clearly he had to be sensitive to the fact that there was a well established legal process in the United States which we could not interfere with. We recognised that there was a genuine concern arising out of particular circumstances but whilst we were looking into it he was not going to give a running commentary on that investigation or the individual cases themselves.

Asked if the Prime Minister was prepared to stand bail for the defendants, the PMOS asked that it be recorded that he responded with a stare.

23 Comments »

I am appalled at the treatment that these men are receiving at the hands of this government. I cannot think of any other primeminister in recent times who would have allowed British subjects to be handed over to a foreign power on such grounds. Their employers have not chosen to prosecute them so why is this action being taken. Some reports say that they have paid tax amounting to \xA31.8 million on the money they are supposed to have obtained by fraud. If this is the case why isn’t Gordon Brown being prosecuted for knowingly receiving stolen goods? If the money wasn’t obtained by fraud then the men involved are innocent and there is no need to deport them. Tony Blair and the rest of the government should be totally ashamed of themselves.
Comment by AC Boyle — 9 Jul 2006 on 6:59 pm | Link
The word deport seems an appropriate choice of words. Given that this government has chosen to rescind our rights in favour of a despotic country which will never ratify its part of the bargain(treaty). Baroness Scotland lied to the nation on Radio 4 on Saturday. There seems to be no end to the appeasement of America by Tony Blair. Perhaps he should apply for American citizenship if he loves them so much.
Comment by Harry McLeod — 10 Jul 2006 on 3:37 pm | Link
The word deport seems an appropriate choice of words. Given that this government has chosen to rescind our rights in favour of a despotic country which will never ratify its part of the bargain(treaty). Baroness Scotland lied to the nation on Radio 4 on Saturday. There seems to be no end to the appeasement of America by Tony Blair. Perhaps he should apply for American citizenship if he loves them so much.
Comment by Harry McLeod — 10 Jul 2006 on 3:37 pm | Link
The word deport seems an appropriate choice of words. Given that this government has chosen to rescind our rights in favour of a despotic country which will never ratify its part of the bargain(treaty). Baroness Scotland lied to the nation on Radio 4 on Saturday. There seems to be no end to the appeasement of America by Tony Blair. Perhaps he should apply for American citizenship if he loves them so much.
Comment by Harry McLeod — 10 Jul 2006 on 3:39 pm | Link
Not much to say really – Bush says ‘Jump’ & our poodle of a PM says ‘Woof, Woof’
Comment by John Clark — 10 Jul 2006 on 6:23 pm | Link
This will surely be the end of the Labour Government – how can we trust them?
Comment by Karen Bundred — 10 Jul 2006 on 8:02 pm | Link
This will surely be the end of the Labour Government – how can we trust them?
Comment by Karen Bundred — 10 Jul 2006 on 8:03 pm | Link
The only role of the Government is to protect its citizens and enhance their lives. The NatWest 3 case (and the ones following) clearly show that New Labour is not fit for purpose. Write to your MP. First they came for the City Fat Cats, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a City Fat Cat …
Comment by Simon Robinson — 11 Jul 2006 on 8:45 am | Link
This government doesn’t deport foreign murderers and rapists, in fact it allows them to freely roam the streets of the UK until someone informs them of the blunder. Now they wish to deport UK citizens to the USA to face trial for a crime that they wholly deny and are willing to stand trial for in the UK. If tried in the USA it will lead to them becoming bankrupt and facing an alien justice system. Well done new Labour
Comment by Sukh Singh — 12 Jul 2006 on 6:04 pm | Link
This government doesn’t deport foreign murderers and rapists, in fact it allows them to freely roam the streets of the UK until someone informs them of the blunder. Now they wish to deport UK citizens to the USA to face trial for a crime that they wholly deny and are willing to stand trial for in the UK. If tried in the USA it will lead to them becoming bankrupt and facing an alien justice system. Well done new Labour
Comment by Sukh Singh — 12 Jul 2006 on 6:05 pm | Link
One factor worth bearing in mind is Blair is angling for the UN job. (sec gen) His only chance of getting it is to be completely compliant to the US… I think he should be locked up on charges of treason.
Comment by James Chaplin — 12 Jul 2006 on 6:08 pm | Link
The Natwest 3 have my deepest sympathies, but what does their predicament mean for the rest of us? For me it means that I shall never again visit the USA. The behaviour of petty US officials can be appalling and to think that were I to find myself in the wrong place at the wrong time I would be subject to their jurisdiction is too dreadful to contemplate. Prior to this treaty I would have been able to do a swift bunk back home and require prima facie evidence to be assessed here before being sent to face trial. This saddens me because I am not anti American. There is much to admire about the US, but latterly the actual, real situation on the ground is not acceptable to me and I shall never go there again unless these arrangements are ‘rebalanced’ (sic).
Comment by k holden — 13 Jul 2006 on 12:48 pm | Link
I say fair play to the natwest three, i dont see that they have done anything wrong. Ultimately it was natwest you had the final decision to sell off part of the compant regardless of what price and so what if they made a fortune out of it by buying stakes in it. was it in the contracts that they could not do so? I doubt it. So UP the British goverment and UP the US too
Comment by freedom fighter — 13 Jul 2006 on 3:46 pm | Link
I say fair play to the natwest three, i dont see that they have done anything wrong. Ultimately it was natwest you had the final decision to sell off part of the compant regardless of what price and so what if they made a fortune out of it by buying stakes in it. was it in the contracts that they could not do so? I doubt it. So UP the British goverment and UP the US too
Comment by freedom fighter — 13 Jul 2006 on 3:47 pm | Link
This is not about three individuals it is about a cowardly, creeping, gutless PM giving in to a corrupt American government (just how did GWB win that first election?)

Blair is not fit to stand near the portraits of MEN like Palmerston & Churchill much less occupy their office. He is not the first PM to give away our rights for personal glory or gain (see the Traitor Heath) but he must be the last and all his caste must go with him.

Lobby, mail & petition this false minister, make him understand what it means to be British & proud of it.
Comment by Harry Flashcove — 13 Jul 2006 on 11:13 pm | Link
It is Mr. Anthony Blair and his government who should be in shackles. This appalling bill should never have gone through parliament. It’s faults were pointed out at the time but with the large majority the government has and most of them acting like sheep this Bill was passed without due care and attention to the pitfalls. How dare our Prime minister give away our rights like this. Also where has the Innocent until proven guilty gone? There is now more blood on the hands of our Prime Minister and his government.
Comment by Elizabeth Owen — 14 Jul 2006 on 10:59 am | Link
I am quite disgusted at Mr Blair on this issue. He has been in shameful dereliction of his duty to protect British subjects. I have always trusted Mr Blair and his leadership has been the reason why I have voted labour in the past. Not next time – the sooner this government falls teh better if this is their attitude to the people who pay their tax and go about their business in a manner which does not offend English law. I have had my belief in Mr Blair extinguished by this – he should hang his head in shame over this case. If these men committed an offence it was in the UK – so why not prosecute them here – because no offence was committed – so why then surrender them to a foreign country where they are at a terrible disadvantage and face the prospect of months or years in prison and where they will be bullied into some form of contemptible plea bargain.
Mr Blair – this will come back and bite you before the next election
Comment by Tim White — 14 Jul 2006 on 3:43 pm | Link
I think it is awful that these 3 men have been sent to America – we have all manner of murderers and terrorists here and these men who live decent lives are just sent to America without any good reason
Does Mr Blair bother about what I think?
Probably not but I do have a vote
Comment by Sally — 14 Jul 2006 on 3:45 pm | Link
Where is this country going? These guys are not terrorists – we let them in the country and send the good guys out
Someone is getting it wrong
Comment by Nathan — 14 Jul 2006 on 4:01 pm | Link
How about deporting some of the scum foriegn murderers, rapists, muggers and so on freed from our **** hotel style prisons, who roam our streets without let or hindrence to commit such despicable crimes again and again?? No chance – but when it comes to law abiding citizens this government will bend over backwards to extradite them. When will the US be willing to extradite some of the known IRA terrorists back to the UK to face trials? Oh, sorry that was a long time ago wasn’t it?

Vote them out!! Citizens of the UK, you only have yourselves to blame by voting them in again and again. VOTE THEM OUT!!!!!
Comment by Edd — 30 Jul 2006 on 8:48 am | Link
Who said Americans do not understand irony. Under the UK-US Extradition Treaty the US cannot extradite if the UK prosecutes for same crime. Isn’t it ironic that it is only because the UK let the alleged criminals from Natwest get away with it that they have to go to the US for trial. Isn’t it ironic that the bank who wanted to avoid the stench of Enron and therefore decided not to chase the alledged wrongdoers now has its reputation dragged through the mud on a global basis not just in London. Isn’t it ironic that the USA which has the friendliest legal system for criminals [UK police warn people that if they fail to provide information and then later rely on that information in their defence this can be held against them — while in the USA the police actually say "you have the right to remain silent" "you have the right to an attorney" "if you cannot afford one, one will be appointed". For all the complaints about the US legal system, it is worth recalling how many guilty people get away with it (remember OJ and many other rich guys who hired high price lawyers…). As believers in the rule of law (a very British concept) the US Congress would never try to pass a law to interfere with the legitimate prosecution of a crime. It is ironic that the home of the rule of law saw its House of Lords and even more shocking the Commons attempting to pass a law to protect three people from getting their due day in court. While we expected a well orchestrated publicity campaign, we did not expect the Chamber of the people to go back to those royal days when bills of attainder (illegial in the USA) were common and laws were passed for single individuals.

Oh, no sympathy for the Natwest alleged criminals with respect to their bail. They have been accused of very serious crimes. They did not have to do business in the USA but when they decided to do the deal they became subject to US law. No different from a US businessman who does a deal in the UK. And when they sought to evade justice by fighting extradition, the proper response on the question of bail should have been to throw them in prison until the trial just like every other person who refuses the call of justice. And when they claim poverty over the issue of paying their lawyers they should compair the cost of a British lawyer to an American lawyer and will no doubt stop whining.

This case has nothing to do with Tony Blair and 10 Downing street. It is not his job to protect alleged criminals from the long arm of the law.
Comment by p banker — 12 Aug 2006 on 6:36 pm | Link
Oh well the trial has now been delayed until January 2008…when will someone make an issue out of the treatment these men are getting at the hands of the ‘we know best Yanks’. Come on Brown make a fuss we will all appreciate it – or show yourself up like the last PM.
Comment by Craig — 3 Aug 2007 on 8:37 pm | Link
Oh well the trial has now been delayed until January 2008…when will someone make an issue out of the treatment these men are getting at the hands of the ‘we know best Yanks’. Come on Brown make a fuss we will all appreciate it – or show yourself up like the last PM.
Comment by Craig — 3 Aug 2007 on 8:38 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Wednesday, July 5, 2006

Natwest 3

23 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries