Showing posts with label Bill of Advocation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill of Advocation. Show all posts

Tuesday, 18 March 2008

US legal system 'worse than Russia' - Times Online

US legal system 'worse than Russia' - Times Online: "From Times Online
March 18, 2008
US legal system 'worse than Russia'
A survey shows that European in-house lawyers would rather face litigation in China and Russia than in America
Michael Herman

Fear of the American legal system has created an atmosphere in which lawyers working for European businesses would prefer to face a major dispute in Russia or China than the US, a study has revealed.

A survey of 180 in-house counsel working in five European countries identified the US as the jurisdiction they were keenest to avoid, with 29 per cent naming it the country they were most concerned about facing a major dispute in.

The US attracted almost twice as many votes as Russia and China. Despite fears of political interference and corruption in their legal processes, both were named by just 16 per cent of in-house counsel as their most feared jurisdiction.

The survey, commissioned by Lovells, the international law firm, noted that “while in-house lawyers are relatively comfortable with managing disputes in their own countries, there is great concern regarding the unknowns in different markets”.
Related Links

* Beware the long arm of American law

* Partial win for Norris in US extradition battle

* Long arm of US could put Britons in prison"

Wednesday, 12 March 2008

US duo celebrate key Lords extradition ruling - Legal Week, legal news, comment, events and legal jobs



US duo celebrate key Lords extradition ruling - Legal Week, legal news, comment, events and legal jobs
US duo celebrate key Lords extradition ruling

Author: Claire Ruckin

Published: 12/03/2008 14:31

Email article | Comment on this article | Sign up to News Alerts
White & Case and Jones Day are celebrating after the House of Lords blocked an attempt by the US to extradite a British citizen accused of price-fixing, bringing to an end one of the most high-profile white-collar crime investigations of recent years.

The Lords ruled this morning (12 March) that White & Case client Ian Norris (pictured left) could not be extradited over his alleged involvement in the price-fixing of carbon products before the Enterprise Act 2002 made price-fixing a criminal offence in the UK.

White & Case head of dispute resolution Alistair Graham, who represented Norris, commented: “We’re absolutely delighted that the House of Lords has upheld what we’ve been saying for more than two years: namely, that no criminal offence for price-fixing existed in the UK prior to the enactment of the Enterprise Act 2002 and that price-fixing in itself cannot be characterised as the old English common-law offence of conspiracy to defraud.

“[The] attempts to extradite Ian on this basis were of grave concern to the UK business community at large, human rights organisations and the political opposition parties. Today’s ruling lays those concerns to rest.”

Jones Day client Goldshields had intervened in the case after contesting a similar point on conspiracy to defraud amid Serious Fraud Office allegations that it was involved in the price-fixing of drugs provided to the NHS.

Litigation partner Craig Shuttleworth led the Jones Day team, with Blackstone Chambers’ David Pannick QC and Thomas de la Mare instructed as counsel.

Despite today’s ruling, Norris could still be extradited on the lesser charge of obstructing justice. That matter has been referred back to the district court.
Related Articles

Ian Norris wins appeal against US extradition - Telegraph



Ian Norris wins appeal against US extradition - Telegraph
Ian Norris wins appeal against US extradition

By Russell Hotten
Last Updated: 12:26pm GMT 12/03/2008

Businessman Ian Norris, wanted in the US on charges of price-fixing, spoke of his relief today after winning a House of Lords appeal to halt his extradition.

Mr Norris, 65, former chief executive of engineering company Morgan Crucible, has been charged in the US with conspiring with other executives to rig prices of components in the 1990s and trying to obstruct an ensuing investigation.

Ian Norris, the former chief executive of engineering company Morgan Crucible, has won his Hiuse of Lords Appeal against extradition to the US over price-fixing charges
Ian Norris will not be extradited to the US

But the House of Lords today upheld his appeal, saying that price-fixing was not a crime in the UK at the time of the alleged misconduct and so he should not be extradited.

Mr Norris said: "The ruling has at last given some light at the end of the tunnel, in what has been a very unfair and difficult situation for my family and me.

"Even with the decision today, I still remain deeply concerned about the one-sided extradition arrangements we have struck up with the USA. It's a deeply frightening situation to be in and I'm relieved that the UK justice system has stood up for its citizens."

Charges that Mr Norris tried to obstruct the US investigation are being referred back to the courts, though the House of Lords judgement made clear that this was a subsidiary issue. Lawyers said it was unlikely that Mr Norris would ever be extradited on this point.
advertisement

Norris retired from Morgan Crucible in 2002 after battling prostate cancer. US prosecutors claim he colluded with rivals to fix prices on carbon parts, to avoid undercutting each other on sales. The cartel, which originally operated in Europe, spread to the US in 1989 and continued until 2000, according to a U.S. indictment.

Morgan Crucible and its North Carolina subsidiary, Morganite, agreed to pay a total of $11m in fines to settle related antitrust charges in November 2002. But Mr Norris was not covered by that agreement and has been fighting the charges since his arrest in London in January 2005.

The British government first authorized Mr Norris's extradition in September 2005, after a lower court ruled it would be appropriate for the businessman to be tried in the US.

Mr Norris's solicitor, Alistair Graham, of White & Case, said today: "We're absolutely delighted that the House of Lords has upheld what we have been saying for more than two years: namely, that no criminal offence for price-fixing existed in the UK prior to the enactment for the Enterprise Act in 2002.

"The US Department of Justice's attempts to extradite Ian on this basis were of grave concern to the UK business community at large, human rights organisations and the political opposition parties. Today's ruling lays those concerns to rest," Mr Graham said.

Brian Howes Family Extradition Fight.

Tuesday, 11 March 2008

Taking Liberties Part 9 Posted by Brian Howes



Taking Liberties Part 9 Posted by Brian Howes

Taking Liberties Part 8 Posted by Brian Howes


Taking Liberties Part 8 Posted by Brian Howes

Taking Liberties Part 7 Posted by Brian Howes



Taking Liberties Part 7 Posted by Brian Howes

Taking Liberties Part 6 Posted by Brian Howes


Taking Liberties Part 6 Posted by Brian Howes

Taking Liberties Part 5 Posted by Brian Howes

Taking Liberties Part 4 Posted by Brian Howes


Taking Liberties Part 4 Posted by Brian Howes

Alex Stone


Alex StoneAlex Stone is a blind computer science graduate from south London who had worked for a bank for ten years. In May 2003 he joined an email list for blind people, and started chatting to a woman called Alma from Kansas City. They started talking regularly on the phone as well as emailing each other. After a few months they decided they wanted to meet, so Alex made plans to fly out to Kansas City and spend a holiday with Alma that August.

In 2003, as his friendship with Alma was blossoming, Alex Stone was still blissfully unaware of the world of political treaties. Alex and Alma spent a wonderful fortnight together, and Alex met Alma’s son, one-year-old Zachary. In the light of his new relationship, he decided to take the redundancy offer he’d been made, and to move out to the US to be with Alma: ‘It was exactly what I wanted to do; I wanted to go and live out there and be with her’.

Alex sorted out his life in the UK and flew back to Kansas City in November 2003. He hadn’t been there long when the trouble began. Zachary developed a cold that wouldn’t get better. He was clearly unwell, so Alma’s mother took him to hospital to be looked at. While he was there, the doctors decided to X-ray him, and discovered that both of his arms and both of his legs were broken.

Alma rushed to hospital to be with Zachary, and Alex stayed at home in her apartment. But over the next four or five days, Alex began to feel uncomfortable, and gradually realised that suspicion was falling on him. ‘Because I was new on the scene, it was convenient for them to suspect me rather than look at their own family.’

Things got worse when a friend of the family came round to the apartment to warn him. The friend said Alma’s family might try to ‘do something stupid’. Feeling threatened, Alex moved out of Alma’s apartment into a motel. Another four days went past and, after no further contact with Alma, the police turned up. He was taken in for questioning and accused of having injured the child. The only other people who could have injured Zachary were members of Alma’s family, and according to the police they were all ‘very nice people’.

Alex wasn’t charged, and he was taken back to his motel. He contacted a lawyer, who told him that as he hadn’t been charged with anything he was free to go, and ought to get out of the US as quickly as possible. So he did; he flew home to London straight away. He’d been in the US less than a month.

Back home he discovered that the papers and TV news reports in Missouri were full of stories saying he had been charged with injuring Zachary, and that he was now in prison. Despite the inaccuracy of the reports, the fact that he had been formally charged with the crime meant things were getting more serious.

First-degree assault on a minor can carry a sentence of up to 30 years in the US.

Nothing happened for a year. Then, in November 2004, Alex’s neighbour at his old flat phoned to say that three policemen had been knocking at his door. Alex was advised to turn himself in.

Two days later he presented himself at Charing Cross Police Station, where he was arrested and extradition proceedings began.

Over the following months, and several more court appearances, he discovered that he had absolutely no defence under the Extradition Act. Simply by charging Alex with the crime, the US had the right to extradite him. Thanks to David Blunkett’s new law, the British legal system was impotent to protect him. At the end of April 2005, Alex’s family drove him to Gatwick Airport, where he was handed over to the Scotland Yard extradition squad, handcuffed, shackled, and put on a private jet to the US.

He was then transferred across the country in ‘holding cells’, and his journey ended in the county jail in (the ironically named) Liberty, Missouri. He was locked up for 23 hours a day. He was allowed to take his laptop with him to write letters, but they didn’t give him a printer, so he couldn’t print them or send them back. It took several months to get him a scanner so that he could scan in and read the letters that were sent to him. He couldn’t make international calls or send emails, so he had no contact with his family in London for many months. When his father came to visit him in September, there was a glass screen between them, and they had to talk using a telephone. For Alex, his dad might as well have been in London.

He was in jail for six and a half months. In November, Alex’s mother helped to secure bail, but he had to remain in the US. By February, his lawyers went to the public prosecutor and, in Alex’s words, ‘They said, look, you’ve got no evidence here, have you? This is not going to stand up in court, so why don’t you just drop it?’ But the prosecutors were stuck because, having gone to the trouble of extraditing Alex, they needed to find him guilty of something. Alex and his lawyers negotiated a plea bargain. He passed a polygraph test, pleaded guilty to fleeing the country (despite the fact that he did it solely on the advice of a US lawyer), and flew home to the UK in the first week of March 2006. He’d been stuck in legal limbo for over 10 months.

There is another reason why the prosecutors were prepared to accept the plea bargain. Alma’s brother had a child who was discovered to have similar injuries that dated from a time when Alex wasn’t even in the country. The mother of that child and the grandmother were prepared to testify against a family member who was suspected of injuring both children. For Alex, it was simply a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Taking Liberties Part 3

Monday, 10 March 2008

Taking Liberties Part 2

Taking Liberties Part 1 Posted By Brian Howes


This is Taking liberties and is about the evil tony blair. Now you will see what he has done to us and the UK. This is in eleven parts because, it is a long documentary film.

This is a good documentary but there may be some bits that your not intrested in. Just ignore them parts if you want.

The last two parts are even shorter because it would be silly to have a video for a few seconds.

for more information, see here http://www.noliberties.com/ and there is a forum there as well.

Tuesday, 4 March 2008

Alex Stone Blind Man Extradition Strory posted by Brian Howes « Brian Howes Family Extradition Fight.

I know that it seems that I repeat myself over and over, but we live in a ground hog day, with our kids, with each other. It is so I know that it seems that I repeat myself over and over, but we live in a ground hog day, with our kids, with each other. It is so hard waking up every morning thinking that this could be the last day that we see our gorgeous girls, that we might never be together again as a family, Me in one jail illegally in America and Kerry in another and our poor little children shipped off to some foster parent each then passed from pillar to post going through god only knows what as well as the living heartache of losing mum, dad and there sisters. It has messed their and our heads up so far, nothing can prepare us, never mind them

Wednesday, 20 February 2008

Court win for man wrongly accused of terrorism | Amnesty International

Court win for man wrongly accused of terrorism

Lotfi Raissi, February 2006

© Amnesty International.

20 February 2008

A flight instructor wrongly accused of training the hijackers of planes used in the 11 September 2001 attacks in the USA won his appeal at the Court of Appeal of England and Wales on 14 February 2008.

The Home Secretary must now reconsider Lotfi Raissi’s claim for compensation, in the light of evidence that he was wrongly kept in detention, as a result of “serious defaults” by the UK police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

Lotfi Raissi has never been charged with any offence related to terrorism. Nonetheless, he spent five months in Belmarsh high security prison while the USA tried to have him extradited.

The extradition request from the US was based on a number of minor charges entirely unconnected with terrorism. The Court of Appeal concluded that the real reason for the request, however, was not to bring Lotfi Raissi to trial on these charges, but to secure his "presence in the US for the purpose of investigating [the attacks of 11 September]."

The Court of Appeal found that the way in which the extradition proceedings were conducted "amounted to an abuse of process" and that they had been "used as a device to circumvent the rule of English law."

Lotfi Raissi spoke to Amnesty International in 2006 about his suffering and struggle for justice: "I’ve been framed as a notorious terrorist until I have to go to court, each time, until I clear my name… What I want to happen is a widely publicised apology, to clear my name and to try to fix all the wrong-doing. I want my life back."
The UK government has indicated that it will now consider whether to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. Lotfi Raissi is still waiting for his apology.
Background

Lofti Raissi is a UK resident of Algerian origin. He was arrested on 21 September 2001 on suspicion of involvement in "terrorist" activities in relation to the recent attacks in the US. The arrests were made on the basis of information supplied to the UK authorities by the US administration.

He was released after seven days’ questioning and immediately re-arrested on the basis of a warrant requesting his extradition to the US. He was then detained for five months in Belmarsh Prison.
In April 2002, a judge ordered his release, stating that the court had received "no evidence at all" to support the allegation that he was involved in "terrorism" – a finding now repeated by the Court of Appeal. He has been fighting for compensation and for a public apology since then.


Abuse of judicial process : the political Molochs

Thursday, February 14, 2008




Abuse of judicial process : the political Molochs






ALICE (Exasperated, pointing after RICH) While you talk, he's gone!
MORE And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
ROPER So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
MORE Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
ROPER I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
MORE (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on ROPER) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you-where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast-man's laws, not God's-and if you cut them down-and you're just the man to do it-d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
ROPER I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god.
MORE (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god . . . . (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle . . . I don't know where he is nor what he wants.
ROPER My god wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else!
MORE (Dryly) Are you sure that's God? He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God- And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law!
Robert Bolt (A Man for All Seasons)


Once again, England’s senior judges, headed by the Master of the Rolls no less, have called the executive to order, this time for abuse of process. The judgement announced today was couched in strong terms.

Sir Anthony Clarke, the Master of the Rolls, “completely exonerated” Mr Raissi of any connection to the 9/11 attacks.

  • The extradition proceedings were a device to secure the appellant’s presence in the US for the purpose of investigating 9/11... We consider that the way in which the extradition proceedings were conducted in this country, with opposition to bail based on allegations which appear unfounded in evidence, amounted to an abuse of process.

  • The authorities, the court concluded, had abused the legal process to keep Mr Raissi in prison for almost six months while the FBI conducted inquiries about him.

  • The Appeal Court studied the evidence and the detail of the court hearings and concluded that both the CPS and Scotland Yard had presented false evidence to the court hearing the extradition proceedings.

  • Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Secretary came in for scathing criticism from senior judges for making false allegations and withholding evidence from the courts in the case of Lotfi Raissi.

  • the British authorities used a US extradition warrant “as a device to circumvent the rule of English law” by detaining him for almost six months in Belmarsh prison. (The Times)


The British government has thus been found to have abused the judicial process and the police and crown prosecution service to have conspired with the American security services to stitch up an innocent man. We are used to this sort of behaviour from Burma, Zimbabwe or the USA. We are less used to it in the UK.

Until 2003, no one could be extradited from this country unless and until it had been demonstrated in an English Court that there was a case to answer. Then the law was changed by a Prime Minister who had taken long term residence in Dubya’s colon. From then on, if the USA wanted someone, all they had to do was ask. The one bit of luck that Lotfi Raissi had was that his case started before this appalling piece of legislation. Had his case started a little later, he would have long ago disappeared to Cuba and his own little room in Chateau Halliburton.

How could this happen in the UK?

Part of the problem is the Crown Prosecution Service, a notoriously shambolic and inefficient organisation, detested by real barristers. To return to one of NHS BLOG DOCTORS recurring themes, the CPS is a classic example of the state dumbing down. It is a haven for legal quacktitioners who would not survive at the independent bar and who do not have the training or the courage to stand up to the executive. As always, you get what you pay for.

We must not allow the Molochs - the Blairs, the Bushes, the Chaneys, the Rumselds - to take over. If we dismantle our laws to catch terrorists, the terrorists will have won. We will be left with nothing. In the final analysis, we are not fighting terrorists. We are fighting to preserve the rule of law.

Labels: , , , ,


© Copyright NHS BLOG DOCTOR

8 Blogger Comments:



The Blair legacy, eh? Now, about "Once again, England’s senior judges,...": I do hope that these ones don't copy More and torture Protestants at home.


By Anonymous dearieme, at Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:45:00 PM



A man of his age.


Well, these days I think I would burn the A of C before the Muslims but, come on Dearieme, the rhetoric is Bolt's not More's.

But I agree with it. Most of all, this is all about civilised people living within the law. Which should apply to all.

John

By Anonymous DrCrippen, at Friday, February 15, 2008 12:09:00 AM




Oi, Doc, how about this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=514340&in_page_id=1770

By Anonymous dearieme, at Friday, February 15, 2008 12:31:00 AM



Just read that deariemen


Don't belief it. A GP making a diagnosis. A correct diagnosis. Never heard of that before. Is it fictional do you think?

J

By Anonymous DrCrippen, at Friday, February 15, 2008 7:21:00 AM



If the CPS or the police present false evidence the judges should hold them in contempt of court, and sling them in prison.


By Blogger Tim, at Friday, February 15, 2008 1:02:00 PM



I've found myself instinctively starting posts with "it's all so depressing" recently. How depressing is that?


But back on topic, I was a bitter cynic before this government but now we can write a magnus nefarious opus entirely constructed with corrupt Labour initiatives. Now, I am a fully subscribed omnihater who's ideals have been tortured into a twisted version of some dystopian Judge Dredd type future and the Necromnicon.

Crime: Dragging the country into a vacuous hole of valueless slogans, lack of personal responsibility, gross financial irresponsibility, personal enrichment, persecution... it goes on and on.

Sentence: Banishing to the Seventh reaches of Hell whilst they're forcibly made to atone for their sins by suddenly having a conscience and reviewing their infinite evil ways. They deserve so much worse!!

Arrrrrgh! Now where's that book...

By Anonymous totallybushed, at Friday, February 15, 2008 7:04:00 PM



The UK also supports the International Criminal Court and the EU arrest warrant. You have voluntarily surrendered just about all of your national sovereignty.


Also, someone arrested in the UK and extradited for trial in the USA would not be sent to Gitmo- it's a prisoner of war camp only.

By Anonymous ZT, at Saturday, February 16, 2008 1:22:00 AM



someone arrested in the UK and extradited for trial in the USA would not be sent to Gitmo


first, I agree they (probably) wouldn't be sent to Gitmo; the people who've been extradited under this Treaty have been subject to standard US judicial process, and I imagine a candidate for Gitmo would be 'extraordinarily rendered'.

Second,

- it's a prisoner of war camp only.

I thought the US Administration still refused to give the Gitmo detainees POW status? They are surely still called 'unlawful com batants' or 'battlefield detainees' (however remote they were when 'captured' from a battlefield or combat, and whether or not they'd ever really been near either. (The refusal to give POW status relates to the Geneva Conventions: civilians are covered, POWs are covered, but initially, anyway, it was thought these people might not be; there is now a judicial ruling thst say they are.)

By Anonymous jayann, at Saturday, February 16, 2008 4:57:00 PM

'I lost my career, my life and my dignity'


'I lost my career, my life and my dignity'


Last week, the Court of Appeal ruled that Lotfi Raissi could claim compensation for his arrest and imprisonment after being wrongly accused of training 9/11 pilots. Here, in his first interview since the landmark decision, he tells of his prison hell, nervous collapse and the terrible toll his ordeal has had on his personal and professional life




















This article appeared in the Observer on Sunday February 17 2008 on p26 of the Focus section. It was last updated at 23:19 on February 16 2008.



Lotfi Raissi seemed destined to become one of the most reviled men in history. A pilot who had trained in the US before moving to England, he was the first person to be accused in connection with the 11 September attacks. He was alleged to be one of its chief ringleaders, teaching the 9/11 terrorists how to fly and crash planes into buildings. It's hard to think of a more damaging accusation. Harder still when Raissi, whose chubby face and small, smiling eyes makes him seem younger than his 33 years, was wholly innocent.


But this did not stop him spending almost five months in Belmarsh high-security prison in south-east London after the American authorities told their British counterparts of Raissi's 'involvement' in the worst terrorist attack in US history. 'It was appalling,' Raissi said yesterday as he tried to live a normal family life, meeting his brother for a family lunch followed by watching the Manchester United-Arsenal FA Cup tie. 'I was guilty until I proved my innocence.'

Last week, three judges at the Court of Appeal ruled he should be allowed to renew his bid for compensation from the government, overturning a decision by the High Court last year. 'I had faith in the judiciary system,' Raissi said. 'Thank God justice is what I got.'

However, it is clear that his wounds are still open. He says he is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and his general health is not good. He has been seeing a doctor for the past two weeks because of high blood pressure. 'I haven't slept properly for the past seven years,' he said.

To understand how damaging the accusations were against Raissi, it is necessary to understand his background. 'My family back home in Algeria have been fighting terrorism for the past 15 years,' he said. 'My uncle is chief of an anti-terrorist branch. We abhor terrorism in any shape or form in our family. This is very damaging for us.'

The reference to 'us' is a telling one. Raissi is angry not for what happened to him but because of the shame it brought on his family. Their dignity, he says, has been taken away.

He recalls the day he was arrested by British police: 21 September 2001. He was dragged out of his house naked at three o'clock in the morning. There was banging, shouting, swarms of police. His wife, Sonia, and his brother, Mohammed, were also arrested but released four days later.

'It was a kidnapping; they could have just sent me some questions and I would have been glad to answer all the questions at a police station,' he said. 'I didn't even have the chance to read the warrant. There were guns everywhere.'

But his nightmare was only just beginning. He was taken to Paddington Green high security police station, which is used to house terrorist suspects. There was evidence - a great deal of evidence, the authorities implied - that would prove his guilt.

'It was very confusing,' Raissi said with a gentle understatement that is characteristic of how he views the tortuous events of the past six years. 'They were saying I was involved in 9/11; they were blaming me for everything to do with 9/11. They said, "You prepared those hijackers". I love football, I love dancing, I love going out - my life is so different from those who flew the planes. I just didn't understand what they were talking about.'

It didn't take long before the 'evidence' - false claims that he was linked to five of the hijackers - to drip through into the media. Even before he was arrested, journalists had mysteriously turned up outside his door asking questions.

From Paddington Green he was moved to Belmarsh, his nadir. The notorious London prison is used to house some of the most dangerous criminals in Britain. Raissi, with his gentle manners and humble persona, did not stand much of a chance in the febrile atmosphere that followed 9/11. Society wanted vengeance. The feeling permeated through the prison's walls.

'I feared for my life in court and inside prison,' he said. 'They moved me from the high security unit after three or four days and sent me to the normal wing, where I wasn't safe. I suffered racism and discrimination. I got stabbed twice by other prisoners and no one investigated.'

Why was he stabbed? 'Everyone had become a judge and a jury,' he says with the sort of resignation which suggests he knows he will never be reconciled with what happened behind the prison walls. The psychological pressures of being accused of one of the most reviled crimes in history soon took their toll: 'I had two nervous breakdowns. One in prison, one when I came out. My brother has been suffering, too.'

In bringing his claim for compensation, Raissi argues that he was arrested chiefly because he was Algerian, Muslim and Arab, an airline pilot - someone who effectively ticked the boxes of an identikit terrorist.

'I was arrested because of my profile,' he said. 'Why didn't they arrest the instructors who actually trained the terrorists?'

The Court of Appeal's judgment on Raissi's arrest, and the refusal to grant him bail, was damning. 'Viewed objectively, it appears to us to be likely that the extradition proceedings were used for an ulterior purpose, namely to secure the appellant's detention in custody in order to allow time for the US authorities to provide evidence of a terrorist offence,' the three judges hearing his case concluded.

But the judges were most scathing about the role of the British authorities. 'We consider that there is a considerable body of evidence to suggest that the police and the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] were responsible for serious defaults.' It is difficult to imagine a more damning assessment.

The ruling also shone an uncomfortable spotlight on the way Britain and the United States trade intelligence and raised troubling questions about the two countries' relationship when it comes to fighting terrorism. Why did Britain listen to the US? Why was it so eager to arrest Raissi, when even the American authorities had urged Britain only to make 'discreet' inquiries into his background.

The justification for Raissi's arrest was at best spurious, even accepting - as the Court of Appeal did last week - that the weeks following 9/ 11 were turbulent ones.

Even the US, it seems, soon realised that Raissi was unlikely to be the man they were looking for. A couple of months after he was arrested, intelligence sources told the Washington Post that 'we put him in the category of maybe or maybe not, leaning towards probably not. Our goal is to get him back here and talk to him to find out more.' Raissi was still held for almost three further months after this statement was made.

What triggered the Americans' original interest in him is equally bewildering. He had spent a period at a flight school in Phoenix, Arizona and when his student visa had expired he returned to Algeria before moving to London.

Travel records appeared to show that in June 2001 he was in Las Vegas when Ziad Jarrah - one of the hijackers of Flight 93, the plane that crashed after passengers stormed the cockpit - was also in the gambling city.

It was suggested that the FBI had discovered Raissi's name in a rental vehicle hired by Salem al Hazmi, one of the five terrorists who hijacked Flight 77 which crashed into the Pentagon. It was also claimed that a video existed of Raissi celebrating with Hani Hanjour, another of the Flight 77 hijackers. Telephone records apparently corroborated claims he had called four of the hijackers.

But none of the claims was true and the US authorities and the CPS were unable to produce any evidence to back up their allegations.

'It was media propaganda,' Raissi said. 'They said I was in a videotape with one of the hijackers that flew the aeroplane. The reality was the person in the video was my cousin and doesn't have anything to do with terrorism.'

Ultimately, American officials were forced to make a provisional request for his extradition on the grounds that he had lied on his pilot's licence by not revealing he had undergone knee surgery, an allegation that in itself was later proved false.

In April 2003 Raissi was formally released on all charges. Six months later he announced he was suing the FBI and the US Department of Justice for $10m for ruining his life. He was forced to drop the civil action after a recent change in the law barred individuals from suing sovereign states.

But it is the British, rather than the US authorities, who Raissi really wants to pursue through the courts. 'Where is the sovereignty of the UK government? They have to come up with evidence. There was no evidence. They didn't provide anything to the judge. That's why there was no case to answer - it was a serious default by the police and the CPS. I'm shocked.'

His claim for compensation against the UK government was dismissed in the High Court last year. But he was determined to continue his legal fight, not for money, he says, but to clear his name.

'People talk about the compensation. It's nothing to do with it. I lost my life, I lost my career. There was a stage when I lost my dignity - that is unacceptable when we live in the civilised world. It's a matter of principle. I want my life back; I want to clear my name and that of my family and to have a normal life.

'I was 27 when I got arrested, now I'm 33. I was going in and out of court for seven years fighting this case - I didn't have a life. If they don't give me an apology it will be the same fight over the next three or four years.'

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has 14 days to decide whether she will fight Raissi's case to go for compensation. 'The government should fix this problem,' he said, his voice rising slightly to express his bewilderment at the idea the authorities could countenance such an idea. 'I am completely exonerated. The only thing I expect is a widely publicised apology. If they appeal the decision it will be a sham. They will be wasting taxpayers' money.'

Raissi is not the only one to have suffered as a result of his ordeal. His wife lost her job at Air France. His brother's wife lost her job at Heathrow, too. The strain has damaged his relationship with his wife. 'Even with my marriage I struggle very much. Every part of my life I struggled with. It is an agony.'

Today, Raissi relies on the financial support of friends and family to get by. Initially when he came out of prison and had no work he refused all benefits. 'I'm not working, I'm blacklisted from all airline jobs. I'm framed as a terrorist.'

Even now, despite being completely exonerated, he is banned from flying anywhere but Algeria because his American extradition warrant is still outstanding.

'We hope Raissi's complete exoneration will mean the US authorities will withdraw the warrant as a matter of urgency,' said Jules Carey, his lawyer from Tuckers solicitors.

Carey also wants to see urgent action from the British authorities. 'Last week's judgment should not only cause the Home Secretary to review the use of

provisional extradition warrants but also prompt the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to overhaul their systems to avoid miscarriage of justice in the future,' Carey said.

Given everything he has been through, it would seem natural if Raissi had become a bitter man, consumed with enmity towards those who locked him away without any credible evidence. But the truth is more complicated, even cathartic.

'I learnt to forgive, I learnt patience,' he said. 'But it has been damaging to my life and my dignity - that is something I will never forgive.'

During the six years he fought to clear his name, he would be approached by strangers at the coffee shop near his home in Chiswick, west London.

'They had heard about my case and would come up and say to me: "Hopefully this miscarriage of justice will be overturned." I am very grateful for their support. My life in London is something I cherish very much. I love England.' By way of emphasising his anglicisation he adds with evident pride: 'I'm a big fan of Man United.'

But then Raissi says something else, something that should serve as much as a warning as an observation. 'I always say Britain is a civilised country with beautiful people. I really cherish the customs, the way of life here. But after 9/11 things changed.'

Innocent Men


2 June 2006 Police arrested 23-year-old Mohammed Abdul Kahar and 20-year-old Abul Koyair after raiding their home in Forest Gate, east London. Mr Kahar was shot in the shoulder during the raid. Both were later released without charge. On the brothers' request the police issued an apology for the hurt they had caused, but insisted that, based on intelligence received, they had 'no choice but to mount a robust operation, which required a fast armed response'.

26 July 2007 Five students, Irfan Raja, Awaab Iqbal, Aitzaz Zafar, Akbar Butt and Usman Malik, were jailed for downloading and sharing extremist literature. The convictions were quashed in the Court of Appeal last week, with the judge concluding there was no proof of terrorist intent.

21 January 2008 Six Pakistani men were arrested at Gatwick on suspicion of terrorist activity. They were later released after it emerged that they were all relatives or supporters of Chaudhry Shujat Hussain, a Musharraf lieutenant. A statement was swiftly released, apologising for the incident and 'any personal distress that was caused to the individuals concerned'.
Compiled by Holly Bentley

British judges condemn police lies after 9/11 attacks that ruined pilot's life

Strange Justice

Saturday, February 16, 2008



British judges condemn police lies after 9/11 attacks that ruined pilot's life

Six years of fighting for justice left Lotfi Raissi an emotional and physical wreck and his marriage close to ruin. But yesterday, the Algerian pilot falsely accused of training the September 11 terrorists heard, finally, that he was “completely exonerated” of any part in the attacks on the twin towers.

As Mr Raissi pored over the Court of Appeal’s densely worded judgment, the lengths to which the authorities had bent the rules to detain him in the febrile days after September 11 became clear. Three of Britain’s most senior judges condemned the Metropolitan Police and the Crown Prosecution Service for abusing the court process, presenting false allegations and not disclosing evidence.

But it was not until page 44, paragraph 154, line 17 that Mr Raissi’s eyes settled upon the words he had been praying for. The judges ruled that the charge that he was a terrorist and had trained the September 11 hijackers was one of which he should be “completely exonerated”. His only “crime” was to learn his skills at the same Florida flying school as two of the hijackers.

Mr Raissi’s eyes filled with tears and he “wept with relief”. Outside the Royal Courts of Justice yesterday he told The Times: “I’ve regained my dignity, it feels as if I can breathe and I am free again. The judges have said there were serious faults and an abuse of process in my case and that has restored my faith in British justice. I knew this day would come.”

The judges also ordered the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to reconsider the repeated refusal to compensate Mr Raissi for locking him in Belmarsh prison for six months and accusing him of the murders of thousands of people. Solicitors for Mr Raissi, 33, are expected to lodge a claim for compensation which — taking into account his loss of a career as an airline pilot, wrongful imprisonment and damage to his health — is expected to exceed 2 million pounds.

But it will take more than money to repair Mr Raissi’s damaged life. His mental and physical health have deteriorated, his marriage to his French wife, Sonia, has suffered and his childhood dream of being a pilot is shattered for ever.

After the September 11 attacks a frightened world waited, dreading the next atrocity. Across the Atlantic, the FBI, the CIA and every law enforcement agency were chasing leads on the background of the 19 terrorists who had hijacked the four airliners. In Phoneix, Arizona, they came across a flight school called Sawyer Aviation where Hani Hanjour — who crashed an airliner into the Pentagon — had trained. The school was popular with Middle Eastern trainees and one of those at Sawyer at the same time as Hanjour was Mr Raissi. He had, checks quickly established, left the US and was now living in Britain. On September 17, a letter from the legal attache at the US Embassy in London was delivered to Scotland Yard’s anti-terrorist branch. “The FBI request that this matter be handled as expeditiously and discreetly as possible,” the letter said. The words “expeditiously” and “discreetly” were typed in bold.

Ten days later Scotland Yard executed its response to the American request. Armed officers smashed down the door of Mr Raissi’s flat in Colnbrook, Berkshire, not far from Heathrow, and arrested him and his wife at gunpoint. The media hailed the arrest in Britain of the first suspects in the global hunt for the men who planned the worst terrorist attacks ever seen. An extradition warrant was issued for Mr Raissi on a “holding charge” that he had failed to disclose a theft conviction on his US immigration application. But in the courts, British lawyers representing the US Government made much more serious allegations.

Mr Raissi, they said, was the “lead instructor” for the hijackers. The courts were told there was evidence that he falsified flight logs to hide the fact he trained Hanjour. Videotape had been found of Hanjour and Mr Raissi together. A notebook said to belong to Abu Doha, a major terrorist suspect, that had been found in London contained Mr Raissi’s phone number. One by one, over the course of ten court hearings, Mr Raissi’s solicitor proved that the allegations and the evidence to support them were false, if not fabricated.

The accurate flight log was produced and the flying instructor who testified that Mr Raissi and Hanjour had indeed hired the same plane, but at different times. The man in the video was shown to be Mr Raissi’s cousin. It took time, but the address book was clearly shown not to have belonged to Abu Doha.

In February 2002, Mr Raissi was released from Belmarsh jail. But neither the British nor the American authorities were prepared to say they had been mistaken. He remained a suspected terrorist, unable to travel outside Britain except to Algeria.

The appeal court, under the presidency of the Master of the Rolls, said that responsibility for many of the mistakes in the Raissi case lay in Britain. In its judgment that the “primary responsibility for the falsity” over the notebook lay with the Met and the CPS. The judges also found that the false claim about the flight logs could be blamed on either carelessness or incompetence by Scotland Yard. In a scathing passage of criticism, at the heart of their ruling, the judges said that the extradition proceedings had been abused as a means of keeping Mr Raissi in custody while inquiries were pursued in the US. The judges said: “We consider that the way in which extradition proceedings were conducted in this country, with opposition to bail based on allegations which appear unfounded in evidence, amounted to an abuse of process.

It had taken the distance of six years and fundamental shifts in attitudes to the events of the War on Terror for a court to look with forensic detachment at what had been done to Mr Raissi. But the appeal judges found that British police and prosecutors were directly responsible for the events that destroyed the young Algerian’s life. Justice, they told ministers, demanded that the Government compensate as a victim of a miscarriage of justice.

Guantánamo Britons’ Spanish extradition request: an update






Yesterday Omar Deghayes and Jamil El-Banna, two of the three Britons freed from Guantánamo in December, returned to Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London for the third time since their release for an update on the progress -- or lack of it -- in the Spanish government’s request for their extradition, based on long-discredited allegations that were summarized in previous articles here ( http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/12/388337.html) and here ( http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/389111.html).As I was unable to attend yesterday’s hearing -- and no major media outlet has seen fit to report on it -- I spoke to Jackie Chase from Brighton’s Save Omar campaign, who filled me in on the morning’s events.Speaking to a busy courtroom and an overflowing public gallery, Edward Fitzgerald QC, representing Mr. Deghayes and Mr. El-Banna, submitted medical reports which analyzed in detail his clients’ precarious mental state. Although he made a point of sparing the court the details of their abuse in US custody, which had created their current problems, he explained that the reports revealed that both men were suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

He also pointed out that a particular source of stress and mental anguish for the men derived from the electronic tagging devices that they have been obliged to wear since their return to the UK, which, he said, were causing them anxiety, because they were giving them flashbacks to their ordeal in the US prisons in Afghanistan and Guantánamo, and specifically to their interrogations and the array of brutal techniques that were used on them during the run-up to their interrogations.


Mr. Fitzgerald then asked for the tags to be removed, a request to which the prosecution graciously acquiesced. In their place, Mr. Deghayes and Mr. El-Banna are required to allow police representatives to visit them during the curfew hours that were also imposed on their return to the UK -- between 8 pm and 7 am -- to check that they are actually at home.


As for the extradition request, the Crown Prosecution Service reported that there had been no response from the Spanish government since the last hearing in January. The judge set a deadline of April 13 for the Spanish to respond to the medical reports, and to issues previously raised by Mr. Fitzgerald and his colleagues; namely, that the Spanish authorities had failed to explain why they had filed the extradition request on the men’s return, when they had not pursued it vigorously during their long imprisonment in US custody; and that they had also failed to explain why they wished to pursue the case when both the British and American governments had concluded that there was no case against either man.


In open discussions between the judge and the various lawyers, the prospect was raised that the Spanish government might drop its extradition request in the near future. If they respond by April 13, however, the formal extradition hearing will take place on May 15.


It is to be hoped that the Spanish will indeed drop their request for the return of two innocent men who are struggling to rebuild their lives. As the case of Farid Hilali revealed last week, the European Arrest Warrant, introduced to facilitate extradition proceedings between EU member states, is proving itself sorely lacking in any mechanism whatsoever to prevent extraditions when the country making the request is acting on “evidence” that fails to stand up to impartial scrutiny. See the following links for more on Mr. Hilali’s story.

http://www.spy.org.uk/spyblog/2004/07/farid_hilali_in_court_unanswer.html

http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2008/01/european_arrest_warrant_extradition_to_spain_law_lords_overturn_habeus_corpus_fo.html

http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2008/02/farid_hilali_extradited_to_spain.html


For more information on the British residents in Guantánamo, see my book The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison ( http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/?page_id=17).




Andy Worthington

- e-mail: andy@andyworthington.co.uk

- Homepage: http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/

UK-US extradition deal attacked


UK-US extradition deal attacked








Lotfi Raissi
Mr Raissi's supporters say he was "lucky" to be arrested before 2003




The UK's extradition laws have been attacked as "unfair" in the wake of the Appeal Court ruling that a wrongly accused pilot can claim compensation.
If Lotfi Raissi were held under current rules he would have been extradited to the US, the Lib Dems and the human rights group Liberty have said.

They have called for a review of a deal with the US which critics say removes the right to challenge extradition.

The government denies the agreement infringes suspects' human rights.

Fast-track extradition

Court of Appeal judges said evidence suggested there were "serious defaults" in the decision to detain Mr Raissi in prison for nearly five months in 2001 after a US extradition request over alleged links to the 9/11 attacks.

But opponents of a 2003 extradition treaty with the United States say that it was only because Mr Raissi was arrested before it became law that he was able to stay in the UK and challenge the grounds for his removal to the US.

The treaty - signed by Home Secretary David Blunkett and US Attorney General John Ashcroft in March 2003 - removed the requirement of the US government to present evidence to a British court when seeking to extradite a suspect.









If he had been arrested now in exactly the same circumstances then he would simply have been whisked off to the United States




James Welch





In effect, it brought the US into line with other EU countries where extradition can be "fast-tracked" under the 2003 Extradition Act.

Extradition to these countries does not normally require evidence to be provided to a British court - only that there has been a recognised crime committed for which the jail sentence is more than one year.

The treaty has also been criticised because opponents say it is not reciprocal: the US does not need to present evidence to a British court to request extradition, while the UK still needs to present evidence to an American court.

However, the government points out that the "burden of proof" to seek extradition has not changed, and that suspects' rights are still protected.

'Unbalanced treaty'

Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said that the Appeal Court ruling "demonstrates how this Government has risked serious miscarriages of justice by entering into an inherently unbalanced treaty with the United States, which seriously undermines the rights of British citizens".

He added: "Somebody in Mr Raissi's position today would not be in the Court of Appeal but languishing in an American prison, under current extradition rules.

"The government must undertake an immediate review of the Extradition Act and reopen negotiations, so that we can have the same protections enjoyed by US citizens."

James Welch, legal director of the human rights organisation Liberty, said that Mr Raissi was "lucky" to be arrested before the new laws came into effect.

He said: "If he had been arrested now in exactly the same circumstances then he would simply have been whisked off to the United States.

"Nobody is denying that there needs to be a proper extradition procedure. But within that procedure there has to be scope for courts in this country to see how strong the evidence is against the person they are seeking to extradite."







David Blunkett and US Attorney General John Ashcroft
David Blunkett and John Ashcroft signed the extradition deal






Mr Raissi's solicitor Jules Carey said that had the 2003 treaty been in effect at the time of his client's arrest Mr Raissi would have been extradited to the US where he may have faced "execution or life imprisonment."

A Home Office spokesperson said there were no plans either to review the 2003 Extradition Act or to renegotiate the treaty with the US.

He said: "All requests for extradition made to the UK are considered under the provisions of the Extradition Act 2003, which provides full and effective safeguards for the rights of requested persons."

"The US is a trusted extradition partner with a mature legal system and it guarantees appropriate safeguards within its domestic courts."