(Why) is this effective?

[WTF]

opps

[Mr.Oneeye]

Good Afternoon Everyone;

The date of the revised extradition agreement is significant, 2003; it was, like many ill-considered responses, bulldozed through after the September 11th attacks.

It was sold to the British Parliament and population as being a needed safeguard against international terrorism. However it has mostly been used by US authorities for crimes that would hardly fit that description.

Added to that is the British scepticism about the US judicial system with its politically appointed prosecutors and judges, who use their conviction and sentencing records as ammunition in elections. Not saying that is wrong, but it is so different to the independent judiciary that we are used to, that we naturally suspect it.

'Tis a veritable minefield, methinks.

Cyclops

[Camille]

Originally Posted by WTF

opps

Did you slip and fall into this thread by accident WTF lol.

xxxxx

[Camille]

Originally Posted by Mr.Oneeye

Good Afternoon Everyone;


Added to that is the British scepticism about the US judicial system with its politically appointed prosecutors and judges, who use their conviction and sentencing records as ammunition in elections. Not saying that is wrong, but it is so different to the independent judiciary that we are used to, that we naturally suspect it.

'Tis a veritable minefield, methinks.

Cyclops

That is a really good point that I forgot about.
I was speaking to a barrister in England a few weeks ago specifically about the split system in the UK. By that, I mean that we have solicitors and we have baristers. A client hires a solicito. Only if/when necessary does the solicitor bring in a barrister. The barrister is advised by the solicitor and has no contact with the client without the solicitor being present. The barrister in turn is duty bound to report the solicitor if he feels he/she is wrongly advising their client (isn't demonstrating clearly that they have the clients best interests at the heart of the issue). It's a constant system of checks (albeit an expensive one) to avoid any sort of "election" to the bar that might involve personal/political agenda. Of course, it could be argued that a barrister might be unlikely to bite the hand that feeds him...but that's another issue altogether.

C

[Camille]

Originally Posted by Clerkenwell

The case that has provoked concern over here in England and which may have been what Camille had in mind is the so-called 'NatWest Three'.

These three men were employees of National Westminster Bank, a UK bank, who arranged an investment on behalf of their employer with Enron. The alleged intent was for personal profit at the expense of their employer.

In the mess that followed Enron's demise, many believe these three were targeted for prosecution by US authorities despite (a) flimsy evidence and (b) no actual crime having been committed on US soil.

Further, neither NatWest Bank nor its subsequent owner, Royal Bank of Scotland, claimed any loss against the three men nor pushed for a trial in the UK.

Despite all this, US authorities requested their extradition to Texas and won, causing widespread anxiety here (me included). Regardless of the legal arrangements between the two countries, it smelled of Blair / Brown supine acquiesence to US interests.

So the issue is probably white collar crime as opposed to murder.

Yes, that was the one I was thinking of at the time of typing...as well as a couple of highly sensitive criminal cases in MA. The one that always puzzled me was Neil Entwistle. As I understand it, there was significant evidence (and not circumstantial) that he committed the crimes of murder back in 2006. Knowing that in the US life means life, he waived his right to appeal extradition anyway. Granted, MA don't have capital punishment....but nonetheless, what was he thinking given he plead guilty and is appealing?

xx

[Camille]

Originally Posted by Clerkenwell

Example:

Immigration officer at immigration control at Sydney airport, questioning a man arriving off a flight from England:

'Do you have a criminal record?

Reply:

'I didn't know you still needed one to get in here'

That's so naughty