My Lords, I am entirely familiar with international crime: how it moves across boundaries, how the European arrest warrant works in practice and how extradition works worldwide. I do not need to be told about that.
It would not be difficult for a prosecutor to go before a judge and say, "We have had discussions with prosecutors in six countries and we have come to the conclusion that the bulk of the evidence lies in this place and it is more convenient for it to be tried there". The only difference is that the defence would have an opportunity of making representations and of being heard. The defence might be able to say to a judge, "Well, they have come to this conclusion behind closed doors but, in the interests of justice, there are broader considerations".
When you come to Gary McKinnon, you are not dealing with an international conspiracy; you are dealing with a young man suffering from Asperger’s disease who has significant problems. He is not part of a ring. There is a straightforward issue. Do we protect vulnerable British citizens in the interests of justice or do we not? The courts of this country have been invited by the prosecution to extradite people to the United States to face charges that are not criminal in this country. I refer in particular to the Ian Norris case and Morgan Crucible; in that case, the charges related to price fixing. The matter was quashed in the House of Lords, so he was extradited on obstruction of justice charges. No doubt that was the result of somebody going to a judge in America with information, getting a warrant, bringing it over here, putting it in front of a magistrate or district judge and saying, "There you are. No matter what the House of Lords has decided about your previous decision, we’ve got him on this, you can’t question it and he can’t challenge it".
We on these Benches are concerned about the protection of our citizens. I am talking not just about the United States but about putting our citizens in front of a judicial system in another country that may be biased against them and where they have no possibility of a fair trial. We feel that the Government have a role to prevent that. Because we take this view on principle, I shall seek the opinion of the House.
Division on Amendment 96ZA
Contents 46; Not-Contents 68.
Amendment 96ZA disagreed.
Clause 78 : Security planning for airports
Amendment 96A
Moved by
Policing and Crime Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Thomas of Gresford
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 5 November 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Policing and Crime Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
714 c481-2 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:41:13 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_592952
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_592952
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_592952