US-extradition - epetition response i just received.

Antaletriangle · 03-24-2009, 03:58 PM

http://www.number10.gov.uk:80/Page18675
Tuesday 24 March 2009
US-extradition - epetition response
We received a petition asking:

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to scrap the US/UK extradition treaty.”

Details of Petition:

“We the voters request that the government scraps the current extradition treaty between the UK and the USA which we believe to be unfair, one-sided and unjust. Ross Hemsworth Journalist.”

· Read the petition
· Petitions homepage

Read the Government’s response
Thank you for your e-petition requesting that the current extradition treaty between the UK and the USA be scrapped.

The Government does not accept that the UK-US extradition treaty is unfair, one-sided or unjust. The information that must be provided in order for a UK extradition request to proceed in the US is in practice the same as for a US request to proceed in the UK.

On the one hand, the UK is required to demonstrate “probable cause” in the US courts. In American law this is described as facts and circumstances which are sufficient to warrant a prudent person believing that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. On the other hand, the US is required to demonstrate “reasonable suspicion” in the UK courts. This has been defined in UK case law in the following terms, the “circumstances of the case should be such that a reasonable man acting without passion or prejudice would fairly have suspected the person of having committed the offence”.

Every extradition request made by the US to the UK must provide sufficient information that would persuade the District Judge in the UK to issue an arrest warrant for the conduct for which extradition is sought, had it occurred in this country. This requirement is contained in section 71 of the Extradition Act 2003.

The Government is satisfied that the information required of each country is as balanced as is possible given the differences between the two legal systems.

03-24-2009, 03:58 PM	#1
Antaletriangle Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: U.K. Posts: 3,380	US-extradition - epetition response i just received. http://www.number10.gov.uk:80/Page18675 Tuesday 24 March 2009 US-extradition - epetition response We received a petition asking: “We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to scrap the US/UK extradition treaty.” Details of Petition: “We the voters request that the government scraps the current extradition treaty between the UK and the USA which we believe to be unfair, one-sided and unjust. Ross Hemsworth Journalist.” · Read the petition · Petitions homepage Read the Government’s response Thank you for your e-petition requesting that the current extradition treaty between the UK and the USA be scrapped. The Government does not accept that the UK-US extradition treaty is unfair, one-sided or unjust. The information that must be provided in order for a UK extradition request to proceed in the US is in practice the same as for a US request to proceed in the UK. On the one hand, the UK is required to demonstrate “probable cause” in the US courts. In American law this is described as facts and circumstances which are sufficient to warrant a prudent person believing that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. On the other hand, the US is required to demonstrate “reasonable suspicion” in the UK courts. This has been defined in UK case law in the following terms, the “circumstances of the case should be such that a reasonable man acting without passion or prejudice would fairly have suspected the person of having committed the offence”. Every extradition request made by the US to the UK must provide sufficient information that would persuade the District Judge in the UK to issue an arrest warrant for the conduct for which extradition is sought, had it occurred in this country. This requirement is contained in section 71 of the Extradition Act 2003. The Government is satisfied that the information required of each country is as balanced as is possible given the differences between the two legal systems.