MPs Call for Change to 'Unfair' Extradition

U.K. Parliament members have called for a review of the country’s extradition arrangements—particularly with the United States and Europe—which they argue are one-sided and unfair to U.K. nationals.

The backbench motion in the House of Commons was passed unanimously, but is not binding on Parliament.

The motion was pushed by MP Dominic Raab, who highlighted the case of Gary McKinnon, accused of hacking into top U.S. security computers. McKinnon has Asperger’s Syndrome, and has been fighting extradition to the United States for 10 years—where he could face 60 years in jail—in a process that his mother says has taken its toll on his mental health. Asperger’s Syndrome is a developmental disorder similar to autism.

Raab told Parliament, “At root it is about the injustice in dispatching someone with Asperger’s Syndrome hundreds of miles from home on allegations of computer hacking when he was apparently searching for unidentified flying objects.”

He argued that it was unfair to treat McKinnon like some “gangland mobster or al-Qaeda mastermind.”

The motion was not about abolishing extradition, said Raab, but he questioned if post-9/11 efforts to fight terrorism and serious criminals, have gone to far.

MPs are specifically concerned about U.K. extradition arrangements with the United States, which some say are one-sided, requiring a greater burden of proof for those suspects extradited from the United States to the U.K. than visa versa. The treaty also means that in cases where the suspect could be tried in the U.K., any extradition request trumps the prosecutor’s request for a U.K. trial.

“In the extradition treaties the U.S. has with Brazil, Mexico, [and] Australia, just to name a few, those countries retain the right to decline extradition in these and far wider circumstances. … Is it so unreasonable for Britain, a stalwart ally, to ask for this modest adjustment?” asked Raab.

The U.S.-U.K. extradition treaty, drawn up in the wake of 9/11 to help bring terrorists to trial, has suffered from mission creep, say critics, and is used now for a wide range of offenses such as drug trafficking and fraud. The motion calls on the government to redraft the treaty to allow refusal of extradition in cases where U.K. prosecutors have decided to bring proceedings in the U.K.

Between January 2004 and July 2011 there were 130 requests by the United States for extraditions from the U.K., compared with 54 requests in the other direction, according to a recent report by Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Speaking in the Commons, former Conservative Party Chairman David Davis dubbed the extradition system “draconian” and said the treaty with the United States was one-sided.

“Between 2003 and 2009 there were 63 extraditions to the USA. Of those, precisely one was a terrorist,” Davis said.

Last week the American ambassador to the U.K. told the Foreign Affairs Committee that the treaty was working fine, and that Washington had never denied a U.K. extradition request. He also insisted the same standard be applied to both countries.

An independent review by former Court of Appeal Judge Sir Scott Baker earlier this year concluded there was no reason to believe the treaty was operating unfairly.

The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) was also highlighted in the debate, which allows fast-track extraditions on the assumption that standards of justice are adequate across Europe.

Raab said that assumption was a “sham.”

Jago Russell, chief executive of campaign group Fair Trials International, said in a statement: “Too many lives have been torn apart by our fast-track extradition system. Following this vote, the government must now act to protect against abuse and to put justice and fairness back into our laws.”

Immigration Minister Damian Green said the government is considering what course of action to take to ensure that extradition arrangements are efficient and fair.