Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Briton Extradited To US Over Arms Claims

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Briton Extradited To US Over Arms Claims

    Christopher Tappin condemns treatment as US extradition under way

    Christopher Tappin: "I looked to Mr Cameron to look after my rights and he failed to do that"Continue reading the main story
    Related Stories

    US-UK Extradition: Key facts
    UK extradition laws: Key cases
    Missile case extradition date set
    A Briton being extradited to the US for allegedly selling batteries for Iranian missiles described his treatment as "a disgrace" as he arrived at Heathrow.

    Retired businessman Christopher Tappin had said he was leaving the UK feeling he had fewer rights than a terrorist.

    Mr Tappin, 65, from London, is being flown from Heathrow Airport to El Paso, Texas, escorted by US marshals.

    Dan Cogdell, Mr Tappin's lawyer in the US, said he would "vigorously argue" for his client to be released on bail.

    "There is no reasonable basis to believe that he is a flight risk or a danger. He is a 66-year-old respected businessman with no criminal record whatsoever," Mr Cogdell told BBC News.

    Mr Tappin, of Orpington, south-east London, has fought against extradition through the British courts after being charged in the US with conspiring to export batteries which could be used in Hawk air defence missiles.

    He faces a trial in El Paso and a possible 35-year jail sentence - but says that he is the victim of entrapment.

    British judges say the extradition is lawful and the European Court of Human Rights has refused to intervene.

    Mr Tappin's lawyer, Karen Todner, said it was "very likely" her client would now enter into a plea agreement to reduce any sentence that may be imposed.


    Lawyer Karen Todner: "He will be wearing an orange jumpsuit and handcuffs"
    "If Mr Tappin does not enter into a plea agreement and is found guilty he will have to serve the whole sentence in America, which may actually effectively be the rest of his life, rather than serving a sentence in the UK, therefore I think it's very, very likely that he will enter into a plea agreement," she said.

    Last week the European Court of Human Rights refused to intervene in his case. Mr Tappin, a former president of the Kent Golf Society, was ordered to present himself to Heathrow Airport to be taken to the US for trial.

    He was seen departing from his house around 08:00 GMT and arrived at Heathrow police station accompanied by his wife Elaine.

    Shortly after 10.30am, Mr Tappin's lawyer said British extradition officers had taken Mr Tappin to a plane where he was being handed over to US marshals. The flight was due to land in Texas around 16:00 local time (23:00 GMT).

    Continue reading the main story

    Analysis
    Dominic Casciani
    Home affairs correspondent
    British judges say the US has lawfully sought Mr Tappin's extradition under the terms of treaty between the two countries. But critics say the law is stacked against British citizens.

    In Mr Tappin's case, a key legal issue is whether he, as a British importer, should be tried in the UK given he was running his business in the country. The second issue is a complaint of entrapment - something the Court of Appeal dismissed.

    The biggest complaint is that British judges cannot properly test the case behind an extradition request. A massive review of extradition led by a senior judge said critics misunderstand how the legal safeguards work.

    But the symbolism of a retired businessman swapping a golf club blazer for prison overalls won't silence those who want the government to rethink the deal with America.

    Read more from Dominic
    "He will be arriving in El Paso this afternoon. He will be appearing in court on Monday morning, so he will be in custody over the weekend." The earliest he could be granted bail would be Thursday or Friday, Ms Todner said.

    She urged Home Secretary Theresa May to help Mr Tappin intervene with the US authorities to ensure they did not object to bail being granted.

    Ms Todner later wrote on Twitter: "Mr Tappin has left for America. Was v distressing when he said goodbye. The extradition treaty is inhumane."

    Arriving at the airport, Mr Tappin told reporters it was "a shame, a disgrace" that he was being extradited.

    Speaking on Wednesday, Prime Minister David Cameron said that Mr Tappin's case had been thoroughly considered by the Home Secretary Theresa May - but that she was also looking carefully at the full findings of last year's extradition review.

    Mr Tappin said: "I look to Mr Cameron to look after my rights and he has failed to do so.

    "The Conservative government, while in opposition, promised to reform the law and they failed to do so and they've let me down, they've let you down, they've let the whole country down."

    Mr Tappin said he was "not very confident at all" about the case because his witnesses were not permitted to testify via video and would not appear in person in the US.

    "I have certainly got enough facts to support my case but without the witnesses, their testimony, it's going to be very difficult," he said.


    Hillary Clinton: "Laws and procedures have been followed"
    "We believe there is no evidence... By virtue of an accusation they are allowed to extradite people from one country to another."

    Speaking to the BBC earlier, Mr Tappin attacked the UK-US Extradition Treaty, saying: "I feel that I have been treated very unfairly by the whole system. I thought that the British justice system is there to protect me and I found that my rights have been taken away from me."

    Comparing his case to that of preacher Abu Qatada, whose deportation from the UK was recently blocked, Mr Tappin said: "I feel that I don't have any human rights because I'm not a terrorist. If I was a terrorist, I would have more rights."

    But asked about Mr Tappin's comments, the prime minister's official spokesman said: "They are completely different cases."

    'Years of talk'
    During his legal battle, Mr Tappin had denied the allegations and said he was the victim of unlawful conduct by US law enforcement agents. In January, the Court of Appeal dismissed that argument, giving the green light to the extradition.

    Home Secretary Theresa May signed an order authorising Mr Tappin's extradition in April 2011. The extradition request has also been approved by the High Court and Court of Appeal.

    On Thursday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that under the UK-US extradition treaty, certain procedures had to be followed and that was what had happened in Mr Tappin's case.


    'NatWest Three' banker Gary Mulgrew says there is no need to extradite Mr Tappin
    Critics of the treaty say that it makes the extradition of British nationals easier because the US has to produce less evidence to support their case.

    But last year, a massive review of extradition by a senior judge found that the treaty was fair to British citizens.

    Ahead of Mr Tappin's extradition, Fair Trials International said nothing had been done about extradition reform after "years of talk".

    "It is high time the government brings forward concrete proposals to build much-needed safeguards into our laws," chief executive Jago Russell said.

    Isabella Sankey, of civil rights group Liberty, said: "No British court has ever been allowed to examine any evidence against Christopher Tappin or consider whether he should be tried here.

    "Even if a US jury eventually finds him not guilty, he'll still spend years in a Texan jail awaiting trial - thousands of miles from his home and sick wife.

    "No-one is immune from such unfair treatment and it's high time the government put some common sense and compassion back into our extradition laws."
    Has this guy ever set foot in the United States? What I understand is, his firm bought batteries intended for Iran. Is he even subject to US law? Apparently so.

    Shouldn't the UK try it's own citizen? I mean after all, his business was based in the UK, he is a British citizen, and this was done from British soil. Yet the British feel comfortable extraditing anyone over to the US?
    sigpic

  • #2
    I think more countries will look at this and decide that cooperating with US is not worth it when they are not getting anything back. To this day, US has not turned in Warren Anderson, a man responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in India while demanding extradition on several Indian citizens.

    It is very hard to get a US citizen extradited from US to your country but apparently it is easy for US to extradite someone from another country.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Blademaster View Post

      It is very hard to get a US citizen extradited from US to your country but apparently it is easy for US to extradite someone from another country.
      Exactly.
      sigpic

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Dago View Post
        Christopher Tappin condemns treatment as US extradition under way



        Has this guy ever set foot in the United States? What I understand is, his firm bought batteries intended for Iran. Is he even subject to US law? Apparently so.

        Shouldn't the UK try it's own citizen? I mean after all, his business was based in the UK, he is a British citizen, and this was done from British soil. Yet the British feel comfortable extraditing anyone over to the US?
        Except fungus faced terrorist preachers , abu qatada walks the streets and lives in a rented house 1200 a week paid for by tax payers , what a bunch of arse lickin jelly fish no backbone politicos the UK has . Kow tow cos the yanks says so .

        Comment


        • #5
          US-UK Extradition: The law explained | BBC | Dec 05 2011

          Its not clear whether its easier for the US to extradite from the UK or not.

          The Home Office's extradition review argued that there was no real difference between the US tests of "probable cause" and the introduction of "reasonable suspicion".

          The panel said that both tests amounted to the basic standard of proof used by police officers in both countries to make an arrest.
          Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights said in its June 2011 report on extradition that the burden of proof for extradition should be increased - but the US argues that that it cannot ask the UK to hand over a suspect unless its request has already met the same test in its own courts.
          US extradition law not biased against Britons - judge | BBC | Oct 18 2011

          The review, led by the former Court of Appeal judge Sir Scott Baker, says the treaty "does not operate in an unbalanced manner".

          But Gary McKinnon's mother Janis Sharp said the finding as a "whitewash".

          Sir Scott's 486-page report finds: "In our opinion, there is no significant difference between the probable cause test and the reasonable suspicion test
          UK extradition laws: Key cases | BBC | Feb 24 2012

          Figures released in the report show between January 2004 and July 2011, there were 130 requests by the US for people to be extradited from the UK, compared with 54 requests from the UK to the US.

          A total of seven US requests were refused by the UK, compared with none of the UK's requests.
          Last edited by Double Edge; 25 Feb 12,, 19:19.

          Comment


          • #6
            There was another case similar to this recently. Some boy was exradicted for hosting a website with links to non copytighted material or something. Website-hosting university student faces extradition to the US | Solicitors UK Blog

            "“There are said to be direct consequences of criminal activity by Richard O’Dwyer in the USA, albeit by him never leaving the north of England."

            It does seem absurd that we are legaly obliged to extradicte legal residents of the UK who have never broken the law here and can't get rid of an illegal immigrant who everyone agrees poses a substantial risk to us. No matter what Sir Scott Bakers legal opinion is of the US extradiction agreement the perceived differences between the level of proof needed between Mr Tappin and Abu Quatada are clearly somewhat apart.

            Comment


            • #7
              The mind boggles

              Leaving Facebook... | Facebook

              Comment


              • #8
                So...let me get this correct-the U.K. Home Office review shows no functional difference between America's probable cause and the U.K.'s reasonable suspicion.

                Further, a former UK Court Of Appeal judge finds in his study that extradition doesn't operate unreasonably "...and the U.K.'s Figures released in the report show between January 2004 and July 2011, there were 130 requests by the US for people to be extradited from the UK, compared with 54 requests from the UK to the US. A total of seven US requests were refused by the UK, compared with none of the UK's requests."

                America requests extradition about 2.6/1 as compared to the U.K. Five times the population yet only 2.6 times the requests. Seems you Brits are hungry to prosecute those slovenly colonists. No U.K. extradition request was denied (0/54) yet seven American requests (7/130) were rejected. Seems the actual data suggests America having a far harder time extraditing suspected criminals to our shore than vice versa.

                Don't let those facts, though, get in the way when slagging the yanks.

                Nice find Double Edge.;)
                "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by S2 View Post
                  So...let me get this correct-the U.K. Home Office review shows no functional difference between America's probable cause and the U.K.'s reasonable suspicion.

                  Further, a former UK Court Of Appeal judge finds in his study that extradition doesn't operate unreasonably "...and the U.K.'s Figures released in the report show between January 2004 and July 2011, there were 130 requests by the US for people to be extradited from the UK, compared with 54 requests from the UK to the US. A total of seven US requests were refused by the UK, compared with none of the UK's requests."

                  America requests extradition about 2.6/1 as compared to the U.K. Five times the population yet only 2.6 times the requests. Seems you Brits are hungry to prosecute those slovenly colonists. No U.K. extradition request was denied (0/54) yet seven American requests (7/130) were rejected. Seems the actual data suggests America having a far harder time extraditing suspected criminals to our shore than vice versa.

                  Don't let those facts, though, get in the way when slagging the yanks.

                  Nice find Double Edge.;)
                  Now then...take out all the illegals in the US and the figures per capita US v brit and the brits wins again.

                  Seriously, this man is now locked up in a prison because the US prosecutor said there is a flee threat if he was given bail. He could have flown the UK at any time since he was told of his extradition.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by S2 View Post
                    So...let me get this correct-the U.K. Home Office review shows no functional difference between America's probable cause and the U.K.'s reasonable suspicion.

                    Further, a former UK Court Of Appeal judge finds in his study that extradition doesn't operate unreasonably "...and the U.K.'s Figures released in the report show between January 2004 and July 2011, there were 130 requests by the US for people to be extradited from the UK, compared with 54 requests from the UK to the US. A total of seven US requests were refused by the UK, compared with none of the UK's requests."

                    America requests extradition about 2.6/1 as compared to the U.K. Five times the population yet only 2.6 times the requests. Seems you Brits are hungry to prosecute those slovenly colonists. No U.K. extradition request was denied (0/54) yet seven American requests (7/130) were rejected. Seems the actual data suggests America having a far harder time extraditing suspected criminals to our shore than vice versa.

                    Don't let those facts, though, get in the way when slagging the yanks.


                    Nice find Double Edge.;)
                    I for one was slagging the UK Govt .

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by tankie View Post
                      I for one was slagging the UK Govt .
                      They still owe us a load of lolly for tea tax they haven't paid

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by dave lukins View Post
                        They still owe us a load of lolly for tea tax they haven't paid
                        I think you can compensate some with what you owed them for LL only
                        No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                        To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Doktor Reply

                          "I think you can compensate some with what you owed them for LL only"

                          They paid off every last cent of it by December 2006. We paid our tea tax in grape and musket ball.:Dancing-Banana:
                          "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                          "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by dave lukins View Post
                            They still owe us a load of lolly for tea tax they haven't paid
                            And now that Cameron is over there , arse lickin obama and cosying up to movie stars and such ,slaps on backs all round stating what jolly good fellows we are , dya think it will ever be paid ? :pari:

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by S2 View Post
                              "I think you can compensate some with what you owed them for LL only"

                              They paid off every last cent of it by December 2006. We paid our tea tax in grape and musket ball.:Dancing-Banana:
                              And a little cold steel.

                              Besides, those were Englishmen who owed the tax. We are Americans!
                              “Loyalty to country ALWAYS. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”
                              Mark Twain

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X