Downing Street Says » Natwest Three

Asked what progress had been made on bail as an extradition date had been set, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that he would not get into confirming or denying times of this specific case as would be the situation in any case. As he had previously stated, the matter was being actively considered but he would not be giving a running commentary on it. Asked at what level these discussions were happening, the PMOS said that discussions would be at an official level but he did not think it was appropriate for him to provide a running commentary on discussions on any specific case.
Put that Lord Goodhart had suggested that there was not parity of evidence required, as the UK needed to produce evidence whereas the US did not, the PMOS referred journalists to what he had been saying since last week. The system before the 2003 Act meant that the US had to produce prima facie evidence for extradition from the UK to the US. Whereas going the other way, US to UK as with some 50 other countries only required "probable cause". Therefore the US had been discriminated against uniquely. The 2003 Act had brought the burden of proof into parity. It was now "probable cause" the same level of proof in effect going both ways and with 50 other countries that included members of the Council of Europe, New Zealand, Australia and Canada.

Asked whether the Foreign Secretary had raised this issue with the US Secretary of State, the PMOS said that the general issue of completing ratification of the Treaty on both sides of the Atlantic (we had not yet ratified it either) was one that was a matter of recurring discussion at that level. However even without ratification the burden of proof was as he had just set out. Asked what difference ratification would make, the PMOS said that the reason for the new treaty was to take account of the changes in the world since previous treaties. The treaty was designed to take into account changes covered by the more global way crime happened in the world and technical issues such as Internet fraud. Asked whether the burden was identical now or when the treaty got ratified, the PMOS said that the burden of proof was now the same as a result of the 2003 Act coming into effect.

Put that when the Act had been introduced Caroline Flint had seemed to say something different, the PMOS said that probable cause was our arrangement with 50 other countries and we had levelled the burden for the US from prima facie to probable cause. In response to the suggestion that the burden of proof may be comparable but that implementation was different and this was causing the complaint, the PMOS said the complaint had been that we needed to go back to a prima facie burden of proof. The government did not believe that was the case. Asked whether probable cause was defined in the same way here as in the US, the PMOS said that probable cause defined the extradition burden in both directions. The language may not be precisely the same but the effect we believed was the same.

Asked why the Prime Minister had reacted to this if he thought the playing field was level, the PMOS said, as he had last week, the Prime Minister’s concern was that the court might decide not to grant bail because they were being extradited from UK to US to stand trial on a complex case. The Prime Minister did not believe that they should be at any disadvantage to that of US citizens in a similar position. As such he wanted to make sure that they were treated no differently than they would be if they were US citizens. Put that they were regarded as fugitives as they had fought extradition and that the Prime Minister could not change the process, the PMOS said the point of the discussion was to address the bail conditions. Asked whether the Prime Minister would seek to allow them to be returned to the UK on bail, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister did not want the fact that they were UK citizens to affect their bail hearing, but we should see where the discussions went first.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

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.

» Monday, July 10, 2006

Natwest Three

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries