Downing Street Says » NatWest Three

Asked what talks were being held regarding the NatWest Three, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) told journalists that there were two things to be distinguished. The first was the extradition arrangements with the US, and as the PMOS had explained in some detail last week, what we had to understand was that the 2003 Act stopped the process whereby in effect, we discriminated against the US by having a higher burden of proof that the US had to meet than 50 other countries that we had extradition arrangements with. The 2003 Act brought us into line in our relations with the US with the relationship that we had with 50 other countries, including Council of Europe countries, New Zealand and Australia. There was also the matter of the Treaty, which neither country had ratified at this stage. The PMOS said that we remained anxious to push that process forward, and that had been an ongoing matter of discussion between us and the American authorities. The PMOS said there was no doubt at all that that would be reflected in Margaret Beckett’s discussions, and as she had said today, Baroness Scotland was planning to go to America at some stage.

Asked if the focus was on getting the US to ratify, the PMOS said that what had to be made clear, as there was some confusion, was that much of the reporting had suggested that in some way, we were trying to discriminate in favour of the US. It was actually the reverse. We ended a process whereby the US was discriminated against, because up until the 2003 Act came into effect, we were demanding prima facie evidence, uniquely from the US, whereas, in terms of 50 other countries, all we had done was bring the US into line with them. The extradition treaty, however, extended and updated the range of offences for extradition to bring it into line with developments such as internet fraud etc. That was why we wanted the extradition treaty, but in terms of the extradition level of proof, we stood absolutely where we were, which was that the 2003 Act effectively ended the process of discrimination against the States.

Put that in the case of the other 52 states, there was reciprocity in terms of the level of proof, that PMOS said it was the same as the US.

Put that it was not the same, as the treaty had not been active, the PMOS said that was not the case. The PMOS said that before the 2003 Act, we demanded of the US, a higher level of evidence than the US demanded of us. They demanded of us what was our established relationship with other countries, which was probable cause. We demanded of the US prima facie evidence, which was a higher level of proof. What the 2003 Act did was to bring the two into level, which was the same level as our extradition agreements with other countries. The US level of proof was the same as that of the 50 other countries. The reciprocity talked about was at the level of the treaty, which was different offences, etc, and that was why we wanted to ratify the treaty. In terms of the burden of proof, it was best not to confuse the two.

Asked that even if there was reciprocity, that would make no difference to the NatWest Three case, the PMOS said that he did not want to comment on the individual case, as the High Court had ruled in favour of extradition. In general however, it did not make any difference to the burden of proof argument, because as things stood, the question was: should the US be discriminated against uniquely, or not? It was as simple as that. Should a higher burden of proof be demanded of the US than for any other country?

Asked to clarify that the UK could extradite from the US on probable cause on a full range of cases, the PMOS said yes, and had always been able to do so. Uniquely, we had demanded for historical reasons of the US, prima facie evidence. What the 2003 Act did was to bring the two together.

Asked why the Prime Minister had become involved with this case, as he had not intervened before in previous cases with bail conditions, the PMOS replied that we recognised the legitimate concern that in these kinds of cases, because the trial preparations were complex, they took a long time. If people were going to be held in custody for that period of time, because they were foreigners, that would be treating them differently than if they were US citizens. What we wanted to ensure was that the treatment was the same.

Asked what the process for ratification in the UK was, the PMOS said that it was a normal Parliamentary process.

Asked if we were preparing to that, the PMOS replied that these were discussions that had been going on for some time, and they should be allowed to continue. We were prepared to do what we had to do, but as part of a co-ordinated process.

Put that the treaty had specified some new offences, it therefore had nothing to do with the NatWest Three, the PMOS said that he did not want to talk about the particular case, as it would be wrong to do so. There had been some confusion between the burden of proof argument, and what the treaty did, and why the burden of proof was changed.

Asked about any impact this might have on the Lords, the PMOS said that it was not for him to speak for the Lords; he was not sure what would happen to him if he did, but the words "Tower of London" sprang to mind! The PMOS said that the point was of course it was important that we tried to get the treaty ratified, and it was important, and it would ease the understanding that people had. What people should not confuse was the central argument about the burden of proof.

Asked if the central area of UK Government focus concerned purely bail conditions under which people might be kept, the PMOS said that that was the issue which the Prime Minister had highlighted last week. We also wanted to see this treaty ratified, because it was important that we updated our extradition arrangements to take account of modern technology, etc. Again, in terms of the individual case, there was a genuine concern about it.

Asked that if the treaty was ratified by both sides, there would be no impact on any burden of proof, the PMOS said that was his understanding.

6 Comments »

So fifty other states are not required to provide a prima facie case. This isn’t a problem?
Comment by Nick Redding — 10 Jul 2006 on 5:50 pm | Link
So fifty other states are not required to provide a prima facie case. This isn’t a problem?
Comment by Nick Redding — 10 Jul 2006 on 5:51 pm | Link
Nick is right of course – the US being brought into linewith fifty other jurisdictions sounds like a bad treaty with 50 nations being extended to become a bad treaty with 51 nations.

Didn’t quite understand the bit above about ratification. Is the 2003 treaty in force as of today, 10th July 2006, or not?
Comment by mark griffith — 11 Jul 2006 on 2:35 am | Link
I think it is disguting and totally against British principles that an alleged crime committed in this country against our laws and against our own companies should even have been considered by this government in regards extradition. Especially as the extradition treaty has not been ratified by the USA and it’s purpose was to fight terrorism.. Even then I think it is wrong, we are an independant state and can deal witih our own law breakers. What happens next, if I were to criticise George Bush and that was an infringement of USA law would I then be extradited to USA. USA have no rights in this country to impose their own legal system or laws on British people breaking their own laws in their own country. Again another sell out to USA, bullies of the highest order.
I was always a Labour supporter but Mr Blair and his friends seem to want to tie our country to the USA, perhaps as another State, a serious misconception of what the majority of British people want.
As this problem gathers momentum then the Government will face a collapse.
Comment by Alf Cavill — 12 Jul 2006 on 9:57 am | Link
I think it is disguting and totally against British principles that an alleged crime committed in this country against our laws and against our own companies should even have been considered by this government in regards extradition. Especially as the extradition treaty has not been ratified by the USA and it’s purpose was to fight terrorism.. Even then I think it is wrong, we are an independant state and can deal witih our own law breakers. What happens next, if I were to criticise George Bush and that was an infringement of USA law would I then be extradited to USA. USA have no rights in this country to impose their own legal system or laws on British people breaking their own laws in their own country. Again another sell out to USA, bullies of the highest order.
I was always a Labour supporter but Mr Blair and his friends seem to want to tie our country to the USA, perhaps as another State, a serious misconception of what the majority of British people want.
As this problem gathers momentum then the Government will face a collapse.
Comment by Alf Cavill — 12 Jul 2006 on 9:57 am | Link
It is for its treatment of its own citizens that this government will be long remembered.
Comment by Bruce Miller — 12 Jul 2006 on 9:57 am | 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.

» Monday, July 10, 2006

NatWest Three

6 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries