Decision on extradition treaties is overdue

Theresa May's response to the extradition treaty review has become even more pressing amid the Richard O'Dwyer case
Alan Travis
Monday 25 June 2012 08.55 EDT

The launch of the Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales's campaign to halt the extradition of British student Richard O'Dwyer for alleged copyright offences highlights once again the "lopsided" nature of the controversial British-American extradition treaty ...

"This damning evidence highlights the lop-sided nature of UK-US extradition arrangements," says Raab. "The US authorities have never let a US citizen be extradited to Britain for alleged crimes committed whilst on American soil. In cross-border cases, we need judges deciding the fairness of extradition according to clear criteria that cut both ways. Tinkering with prosecutors' guidelines is not enough – decisions which affect the liberty of our citizens should be made in open court."

The US claims that such criticism is unfair and that no one can be sent from Britain to the US to stand trial unless the charge is a crime in both countries, and that if British prosecutors believed that the charges would be best tried in a UK court, they could refuse the American extradition request. They also claim that Britain has refused seven extradition requests from the the US, while the Americans have never refused a British extradition request. They also claim that, so far, there have been 130 extradition requests from Washington under the treaty. So far, 73 have gone ahead, 50 are still pending and seven have been refused. Britain has made 54 requests, and 38 have so far gone ahead. The Americans add that when the Baker review panel took evidence from British extradition judges they couldn't identify any cases since the 2003 Extradition Act in which a "forum bar" would have decided to halt the extradition.

However, this argument did not wash with the Commons home affairs committee when it looked at the issue earlier this year. Its report, published in March, concluded that the treaty was "unbalanced, making it easier to extradite a British citizen to the US than vice versa" ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jun/25/decision-uk-extradition-treaties?newsfeed=true