THE EXTRADITION REVIEW WHITEWASH
What the review utterly fails to address is that under the wretched Labour government's Extradition Act 2003, there is no longer any opportunity for the UK accused to have their lawyers cross examine the alleged evidence or allegations brought against them by the US authorities. In Gary McKinnon's case this resulted in the grossly exaggerated claims of nearly 1 million dollars financial damage being laughed out of court (the embarrassment damage to the reputation of the US military was obviously huge, but not measurable in terms of financial damage). Bear in mind that Gary McKinnon's section 2 offence is NOT extraditable. The alleged damage, for which there is not one shred of evidence, is the only thing that makes it a section 3 offence and therefore extraditable.
To claim that there is no difference or inequality between USA requests for Extradition from the UK and vice versa is astonishingly perverse. If a the UK authorities want to extradite someone from the USA, they have to provide evidence which is subjected to cross examination by the defendants' lawyers. The reverse is simply not true in UK Extradition proceedings to the USA.
All the appeal court judges etc. have never been allowed to pronounce upon the admissibility or sanity of these allegations during the Extradition Act 2003 box ticking procedures, which prevent any actual consideration of the substance of the allegations or any witnesses etc. from being cross examined.
It is irrelevant whether or not Appeal Court Judges etc have been briefed on the detailed substance of the case, there has never yet been an opportunity for Gary McKinnon's lawyers to cross examine any of the evidence or witnesses against him.
American nationals have a further protection in that an offence which occured whilst the individual was in the US such as an American affecting British computers, that individual will not face the justice system of another country. We do not have that automatic bar to extradition
The document does list various sources of oral and written evidence given to the panel, but it manages to exclude any mention of our evidence to the panel. The panel refused to meet victims of extradition or members of their legal teams, yet managed to find the time to fly to America at the taxpayers expense to meet with practically the entire US Department of Justice from the Attorney General down. When a request was made via 'freedom of information' for the minutes of the meetings it was refused because "REVEALING THAT INFORMATION COULD DAMAGE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE UK AND THE USA"
Unless the Conservative Home Secretary Theresa May wants to be condemned by history as indistinguishable from her authoritarian and inept Labour predecessors, she should ignore most of the recommendations of this peculiar report.
Former shadow home secretary David Davis said "The idea that the UK/US extradition treaty is in any sense symmetrical is in defiance of the facts, and the idea that we should not require prima facie evidence before deporting a British citizen is in defiance of natural justice,".
"Both coalition parties promised to correct the systemic injustices of our extradition laws. It is time we delivered on that promise."