Tourists must wait for decision over extradition to Cyprus

THE UK GOVERNMENT ALLOWS UK CITIZENS TO BE EXTRADITED EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN CONVICTED IN THIER ABSENSE TO FACE JAIL TERMS WITHOUT ANY CHANCE OF APPEAL OR RETRIAL.

Two Essex men face months of waiting to find out if they must return to Cyprus to serve a three-year jail sentence for their involvement in a teenager's death.

Luke Atkinson, 24, and Michael Binnington, 23, both from Witham, appeared at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court hoping to discover whether they had won their fight against extradition.

But the case was adjourned to a later date, and it is likely to be taken to the High Court next year before it is resolved.

The two men were passengers in a car driven by Atkinson's uncle Julian Harrington in Protaras, Cyprus, in 2006, when it hit a moped, killing the bike's pillion passenger, Christof Papiris, 17.

Harrington, also from Witham, is serving a 15-year jail sentence after admitting manslaughter and causing grievous bodily harm.

Atkinson and Binnington have said they were only involved "unwittingly" as back seat passengers in a highly drunken state.

They were initially acquitted, but at an appeal hearing in April at the Supreme Court of Cyprus which they did not attend, they were found guilty of conspiracy to cause manslaughter. They were sentenced to three years in prison and European Arrest Warrants were later issued to return them to Cyprus.

District Judge Quentin Purdy has ruled: "The Supreme Court of Cyprus conducted a trial at which both men deliberately absented themselves."

He adjourned the case to September 19 when another hearing date will be set. Both men are on bail.

It must now be decided whether the trial in Cyprus was fair and in compliance with the Human Rights Act and both sides have indicated they will appeal any extradition decision in the High Court, which means the issue is not likely to be resolved until at least the beginning of next year.

 

LIBERTY SHOULD CHALLENGE THE EXTRADITION TREATY IN THE ECHR.

Lords to rule on hacker Gary McKinnon's extradition

Author:

Ian Grant

Posted:

17:07 13 Jun 2008

The US government accuses McKinnon of breaking into the
computer network at the Earle Naval Weapons Station, stealing computer
passwords, and shutting down the network in the immediate aftermath of
the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

A second indictment charges McKinnon with intentional damage to a
protected computer, with intrusions into 92 computer systems belonging
to the US Army, Navy, Air Force, Department of Defense and NASA.

McKinnon is also charged with hacking into two computers located at
the Pentagon and six private companies' networks. He is accused of
causing approximately £450,000 in damages to computers located in 14
states.

"As a result of the intrusions into the US military networks,
McKinnon rendered the network for the military district of Washington
inoperable," a US Attorney statementsaid.

McKinnon admits entering US computer systems without authorisation, but denies causing damage or non-operation of any of them.

If convicted, McKinnon could face 60 years in a US jail.

Members of the former National High Tech Crime Unit arrested
McKinnon in 2002, three years after he began looking for evidence of
extra-terrestrial beings and technologies on US computers, McKinnon
told Computer Weekly.

British taxpayers will pay both the CPS's costs and much of McKinnon's. The total so far is estimated to be close to £900,000.

Technorati Tags: Gary McKinnon, brian howes, extradition, house of lords, unfair extradition, liberty, kerry howes, howes family

High Court certfies two points of law for the House of Lords to consider in the Gary McKinnon extradition to the USA case.

fg

on May 29, 2007 1:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

The Administrative Court (one of the High Courts) has certified two questions on points of law, for the House of Lords (the highest Court in the the United Kingdom) to consider.

The House of Lords is not automatically bound to consider this final appeal, e.g. they chose not to do so in the case of the the NatWest 3 bankers

Media statement from Gary's solicitors Kaim Todner:

We are pleased to report that the Administrative Court have certified two questions of being of public importance in the case of Gary McKinnon. These questions relate to the diplomatic note confirming that Mr McKinnon will not be treated as a terrorist under Military Order No. 1 by the American Government and secondly the conduct of the American Government in offering Mr. McKinnon a plea bargain but only on the basis that if he did not accept it he would subsequently not be repatriated if extradited to the USA.

We will now be applying for leave to the House of Lords for these points to be argued in full.

Kaim Todner LLPTechnorati Tags: Gary McKinnon, brian howes, extradition, house of lords, unfair extradition, liberty,

Human Rights Doubts over terror law safeguards

The government hopes its concessions will head off a Commons defeat

The government has still not done enough to protect individual liberty in its anti-terror plans, an influential committee of MPs and peers says.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith unveiled a series of amendments earlier this week aimed at heading off a Commons defeat.

But in a new report the joint committee on human rights said the safeguards were "inadequate".

And plans to hold terror suspects for up to six weeks without charge would "almost certainly not be lawful".

Ms Smith told The Spectator she thought the government would win next week's crunch Commons vote on 42 day detention.

But she also stressed that defeat would not bring down the government, as some commentators have predicted.

"I think if it was turned into a vote of confidence there would be massive support of the government, I don't think it would be a problem," she told the magazine in an interview to be published on Thursday.

'Grave threat'

Ms Smith has unveiled a series of amendments to the Anti-Terror Bill aimed at winning over critics.

This report takes paint-stripper to the government's claims that it is installing adequate safeguards Chris Huhne Liberal Democrats

These include greater Parliamentary oversight and the stipulation that extra detention powers could only be used in the event of a "grave exceptional threat".

The government argues that the scale and complexity of terror plots mean police will inevitably need longer to hold suspects in the future.

But Lib Dem, Conservative and up many Labour MPs are still thought to be planning to vote against the plans on civil rights grounds.

It had been thought as many as 50 Labour MPs would vote against the plans, but some are thought to have changed their minds after studying the amendments.

The government's case will not be helped by a report by the joint committee on human rights published on Thursday, which said the plans could breach European human rights laws.

The report adds that the amendments offered were "inadequate to protect individuals against the threat of arbitrary detention".

The committee said the description of a "grave exceptional threat" was not tight enough.

'Heavily circumscribed'

Committee chairman Labour MP Andrew Dismore said: "The government has talked of a major emergency, the 'nightmare scenario' of simultaneous plots across Britain or two 9/11s at once.

"Yet the amendments tabled by the government provide for possible events falling well short of that."

The report also said requiring the home secretary to declare publicly there was a serious enough emergency to justify the powers was not much of a safeguard without independent scrutiny.

And allowing Parliament to vote on the individual case within seven days - another concession - would make little difference as any debate would be "heavily circumscribed by the risk of prejudicing future trials".

The committee says the proposals should be abandoned and instead the government should set out how it would opt out of human rights obligations, should there be an "emergency threatening the life of the nation".

It concluded: "No amount of additional parliamentary or judicial safeguards can render the proposal for a reserve power of 42 days' pre-charge detention compatible with the right to liberty in Article 5 of the ECHR (European Convention of Human Rights)."

For the Liberal Democrats, Chris Huhne said: "This report takes paint-stripper to the government's claims that it is installing adequate safeguards for the use of 42 days of detention without charge."

He said the extension would be "draconian" and "nearly four times as long as in comparable English-speaking countries". Technorati Tags: anti-terror, gordon brown, terror bill, anti-terror bill, liberty

Blunkett: Labour at rock bottomThe end of Labour

Gordon Brown's government has "hit rock bottom", but defeat over
anti-terror plans would not be a "knockout blow", ex-home secretary

David Blunkett says.

Attempts to extend the limit to 90 days in 2005 ended in defeat for Labour

He told Simon Mayo on BBC Five Live that Labour's present unpopularity meant things could not get any worse.

Mr Blunkett backs the plan to extend from 28 days to 42 days the time terror suspects can be held without charge.

Mr Brown says he will not retreat on the issue despite the number of Labour rebels threatening to inflict defeat.

Mr Brown says the extension from 28-days is needed because of the complexity and sheer number of plots.

We've hit a rock bottom in my view and we can only climb out of it David Blunkett Sheffield Brightside MP

But he faces opposition from about 50 Labour MPs, in addition to Lib Dems and Tories amid fears over civil liberties.

Mr Brown says he has "tried to build a consensus" on the plans - due to
be subject to a Commons vote next week - and urged MPs to back him.

He also refused to be drawn on whether defeat would mean a vote of confidence on his leadership.

Mr Blunkett said he did not believe losing the vote would spell the end for the prime minister.

Civil liberty concerns

"We've hit a rock bottom in my view and we can only get... climb
out of it, so I think that, whilst it would be yet another knock, it
would not be a knockout blow," he said.

He insisted there was no alternative to keeping suspects in
custody, despite claims by some critics the measure would infringe
civil liberties.

"I really don't understand how anyone can believe that you can
pat a terrorist on the head and say: 'Don't worry, we won't hold you
while we investigate these multiple links across multiple boundaries
across the world - we'll let you out, so we're being ultra-careful not
to infringe your rights, even though you might well infringe our
lives'," he said.

"We're trying here to ensure that when evidence is available of
the threat of terrorist action, we don't allow the very act of having
an open, democratic, civil rights based society to undermine our
ability to protect ourselves - that would be very foolish."

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is set to meet Labour backbenchers
on Monday evening in a bid to try to persuade them of the need for the
42 day plan.Technorati Tags: gorden brown, labour party, civil liberties, brian howes