It is with a horrid hypocrisy that young Richard O’Dwyer had his unnecessary extradition to the US rubber-stamped on the same day that Cameron and Obama cemented their love-in with a joint article declaring “a partnership of the heart, bound by the history, traditions and values we shareâ€.
Richard O’Dwyer, for those that don’t know, is the student who created a website called TV Shack that would link to sites showing free TV. He didn’t host free TV, he just directed you to it; not unlike the way a search engine could direct you to child porn. We don’t see Google or Yahoo extradited to the US for their links pages but Richard is a little guy, with no Corporation Tax to offer, so off you go son. Don’t think Cameron or Obama will spare a thought for you.
For me, cases like this are the big disappointment of not just the coalition, but the Labour Government before it. Gary McKinnon has been neglected by Governments who were too afraid to tell the US to get some perspective and drop their pursuit of harmless British citizen. Richard O’Dwyer is suffering from the same insipid toadying from the Tories today and, well, there has long been a strong case for the UK getting more involved in the shocking treatment of Wales-raised Wikileaks whistleblower Bradley Manning.
I don’t know the detail of this extradition treaty but how a crime can be committed against the US when you haven’t committed a crime in the UK is beyond me. There should be a sense-check built into this agreement whereby the Home Secretary can assess whether there is a serious case to answer and authorise or reject the request accordingly. Searching for UFOs on a US network and mucking around on the internet for TV links would, needless to say one would hope, fall into the ‘reject’ category.
This young man faces a 10 year prison sentence, the same sentence has those who have committed rape, child abuse or tax fraud. Everyone knows it’s wrong for this guy to be flown out to America for this but no one will do anything about it, myself, hand on heart, included, except for writing to my MP and signing any petitions out there. Big deal.
Why aren’t we taking to the streets on such occasions? What would we hope would happen if it was us with our feet held to an unfair fire? Are our lives really so busy and/or so tedious that we no can no longer motivate ourselves into righting these wrongs through the power of numbers?
Sadly, it seems that way.
It won’t just be Richard O’Dwyer who is being extradited away from the UK if that sad, shameful event is to take place, it is a little bit of ourselves too.
UPDATE
#1 by Rob on March 13, 2012 - 5:19 pm
Try his mum’s blog
http://juliasblog-the-fight-of-our-lives.blogspot.com/
and the petition she set up which has 20,000 signatures
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-extradition-fair-uk-trial-for-richard-o-dwyer/signatures.html
#2 by Jeff on March 13, 2012 - 5:20 pm
Great, thanks.
#3 by Iain Menzies on March 13, 2012 - 5:23 pm
I am generally pro-America. I believe that the US/UK Alliance is by far the most important international relationship the UK has, And not just in defence terms and I don’t really go in for the whole ‘oh arent we a good little puppy routine (mostly cos I have a puppy just now and GOOD isnt the first word i would use to describe the little bugger).
That being said, the extradition treaty needs to be revisited. Preferably in negotiation with the US, but If a reasonable agreement cant be reached then the current treaty should be suspended.
I would love to say that i agree totally with what you say above, and i would, if you hadnt brought Manning into this. I dont care if he has a Welsh connection he is a US Citizen, and a soldier in the US Army, what he is being charged with comes damned close to treason.
#4 by Jeff on March 13, 2012 - 5:25 pm
Your thoughts on Manning shouldn’t affect your thoughts on O’Dwyer. They are separate cases.
I can appreciate how one could agree with me on one but disagree with me on the other.
#5 by Iain Menzies on March 13, 2012 - 5:30 pm
Sorry i thought i was clear.
On O’Dwyer i do agree with you.
I just think i would be better if you hadnt mentioned Manning, as not only are they separate cases but VERY different issues are in play.
#6 by Jeff on March 13, 2012 - 5:35 pm
I get you now. Yep, fair point, I may have over-reached.
#7 by Craig Gallagher on March 13, 2012 - 5:41 pm
Jeff, I completely agree. The US-UK extradition treaty is, and has been for years, an outrage. The entire principle of jurisdiction is suspended when the US government can start demanding their right to prosecute people who have never set foot in their country, as is the case with MacKinnon and with O’Dwyer.
The fundamental problem is that, by and large, the US judicial system isn’t even designed to facilitate justice. The question asked at every trial, and of every judge, is “do we have enough evidence to punish the accused?” The question of establishing who did or didn’t commit the crime, especially in high profile cases, continues to elude them, which is why they were so gut-bustingly outraged over the release of al-Megrahi and is why Christopher Tappin is being effectively court-martialed for dealing with a country the US doesn’t like.
This is just one of the many ways the last Labour government killed Britain and everyone it once stood far, and is in fact probably the most egregious. In order to retain some semblance if international importance, we’ll mortgage our dignity and the rights of our own people to a foreign power that, domestically at least, has as many problems with religion and summary violence as some of the Middle Eastern regimes we so revile.
#8 by Iain Menzies on March 13, 2012 - 6:55 pm
So how come OJ got a ‘not guilty’ verdict?!
#9 by Craig Gallagher on March 14, 2012 - 1:31 pm
That case was complicated by so many things, not least the deep racial element to proceedings and the widespread contamination of both the evidence and the jury’s position in the court of public opinion. You could ask the same question about the Casey Anthony acquittal last year, which also seemed to fly in the face of the evidence.
In both cases, it came down to a question of whether there was enough evidence to convict, and sadly there wasn’t. There was no provision afterwards for a reinvestigation, however, unless new evidence came to light. Thankfully, OJ robbed a bank and is currently behind bars
#10 by Iain Menzies on March 14, 2012 - 7:41 pm
The point is that you said is there enough evidence to punish the accused. I aint found anything online that backs that up. And the point about OJ is that he was found not guilty, as opposed to not punishable.
#11 by Gary on March 15, 2012 - 2:48 am
“The question asked at every trial, and of every judge, is “do we have enough evidence to punish the accused?â€
Which is no different from either English or Scots law. At the trial stage the question in all three systems is: “Is there sufficient evidence to prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?” If the defendant is not guilty (or not proven in Scotland) the identify of the culprit is a matter for further investigation and another trial.
“There was no provision afterwards for a reinvestigation, however, unless new evidence came to light.”
In US law, once a defendant has been tried and acquitted they can not be tried again on the same charges no matter what new evidence emerges. This is unlike Scots law where, as I understand it, there are (very recent) provisions for a re-opening proceedings if new evidence is discovered.
#12 by Allan on March 13, 2012 - 7:36 pm
“I don’t know the detail of this extradition treaty but how a crime can be committed against the US when you haven’t committed a crime in the UK is beyond me.”
Completely agree. The flip side of this of course is the “libel tourism” trade that goes on at the moment – which means that a case that does not stand up to the libel laws in the USA just gets taken to London’s law courts (money permitting). If memory serves, there have been a couple of cases where things have appeared in American publications but have sparked libel cases at the High court.
However, to get back to the point of the article. While it is wrong that the UK-USA relationship seems to be one sided, is it not the case that many of these crimes eminate from Bush’s post September 11th “Homeland Security Act”?
#13 by Tris on March 13, 2012 - 9:36 pm
I agree with you completely on the subject of Mr O’Dwyer.
Although I can’t see the Home Secretary having the nerve to disallow a request from the USA on common sense grounds, it would be good if he or she had that right.
With reference to the joint article containing the words “a partnership of the heart, bound by the history, traditions and values we share”, has anyone ever stopped to think about the history we share, or these much vaunted traditions or values?
I’d really like to know exactly what it is we share, because apart from us having something approaching the same language in most parts of the two entities, I can see very little that we have in common.
I can’t help thinking that by now it is a group of words that they trot out without thinking and that most people on both sides of the Atlantic accept without analysing it too much, or at all.
I wonder at this time when Cameron is doing the bit of the job he is probably not too bad at (given that at Eton they teach one which fork and knife to use, how to make small talk at cocktail parties, and when to wear white and back ties), if Cameron remembers how, just 4 years ago he backed Mr McCain and bitterly criticised the policies of the then Senator Obama.
Still I’m sure he won’t let that get in the way of a deal of kissing a** now.
#14 by richard on March 14, 2012 - 12:28 am
Why aren’t we taking to the streets on such occasions?
For me personally it dates back to 2003 and the pre-Iraq protests, when I saw first-hand the true power of public activism. Over a million people took to the streets on a single day, previously unimaginable levels of public engagement, and what notice did the government take of it? Yep, you guessed it – absolutely none.
#15 by Craig on March 14, 2012 - 3:21 am
I find it constructive to refer to the underlying court rulings in cases like this rather than rely on the media reporting of them. Anyone can read the ruling here http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/us-v-odwyer-ruling.pdf
It seems that a number of the criticisms Jeff and others have raised subsequently were actually specifically dealt with.
For example, the argument that O’Dwyer was no different to Google or a “mere conduit” as European law puts in was tested in the Extradition Court. The Defence cited case law supporting exemption but the Judge ultimately favoured the prosecutions argument for why O’Dwyers alleged conduct could be distinguished from the case law (namely that TVShack required and vetted sign up, made no attempt to protect copyright and was actively involved in who was allowed to post links and which links would be posted).
It also followed that the Judge ruled that the conduct alleged met the dual criminality test and would be a criminal offence in the UK under Section 107(2A) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
The Judge was also at pains to point out that this was an extradition, not trial, court. It was not the court’s place to test the case but simply to ensure that the legal procedures for extradition had been met, which include, amongst other matters, that the alleged offence exists both here and in the US, that it carries a potential sentence exceeding 12 months in both jurisdictions (the commonly accepted definition of a serious offence – after all it gets you disqualified from Parliament), and that sufficient evidence is presented.
In 2010 the Home Secretary set up an Extradition Review to evaluate the working of various extradition treaties – including the UK/US treaty and European Arrest Warrants (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police/operational-policing/extradition-review?view=Binary). One of the findings was that, contrary to public belief, the extradition treaty is not unbalanced. Where the UK test is “reasonable suspicion” (in the UK meaning, not the US meaning), the US test is “probable cause”. In the review team’s opinion there is no significant difference between the two.
Furthermore before the Americans ask us to extradite someone, they need to seek an arrest warrant from the US courts – which means satisfying their probable cause test as well as our reasonable suspicion test. (Something we don’t bother with when we want to extradite from the States). They considered extradition proceedings in the UK to be more elaborate than in the US – in other words it is more dificult for the US to extradite from us than vice versa – mainly because of the various appeals and European Court processes.
Jeff proposes that there should be a “sense-check” whereby the Home Secretary can assess whether there is a serious case to answer and authorise or reject as appropriate. Leaving aside the issue of “extradition, not trial, these are precisely the roles that the judiciary carries out – indeed it is a cornerstone of British law that it is left to the independent judiciary (bar certain matters involving national security, the death penalty, competing extradition claims and a couple of other matters). Parliament chose to limit the discretion of the Home Secretary (or where Scotland is concerned, Scottish Ministers). Whereas in the States where the Secretary of State’s decision is final (after the lower courts have played their role) the safeguards for those being extradited to the UK are considered to be lower.
Finally Jeff laments that seemingly we no longer motivate ourselves to “right wrongs” bys sheer dint of numbers. This sounds democratic but is it Just?
Bearing in mind that the Extradition Act was approved by Parliament and this particularly case has already been subject to an extradition case where both the prosecution and defence counsel argued their case in depth in front of an independent judge, who ruled that the legal requirements had been met in full, and O’Dwyer still has the right to appeal to higher courts in this country. (Not counting that he once in the States he is also protected by the US Constitution – which in certain regards extends considerably more protection than British law). That all these protections apply to all, whether they have public opinion on their side or against.
Should all that be overturned by a mass of lay people who have briefly read third hand accounts from sources that may or may not be independent?
Would it be acceptable for public opinion to prevent Brian Howe’s extradition from Scotland to the US (there has been considerable public support for him in spite of his commiting sexual offences against his children)?
We have evolved over the centuries a Parliament and an independent judiciary to protect ourselves from ourselves for a reason. Perhaps we should pause to reflect on that first.
#16 by Jeff on March 14, 2012 - 12:58 pm
Great comment Craig, thanks for that. Not sure if I’ll be able to match it with a response but I’ll see later….!
#17 by CassiusClaymore on March 14, 2012 - 9:50 am
Another Union benefit, no doubt.
#18 by Dr William Reynolds on March 14, 2012 - 10:53 am
I agree with Jeff on this one.What is to be done?