Howes Family Extradition By Billy Briggs

No UK trial to establish evidence of supplying global crystal-meth labs By Billy Briggs.

A SCOTS couple who have four children face the possibility of prison and extradition to America next month despite having not stood trial in a court for the crime of which they are accused.

In a case that highlights the controversial impact on British justice of the post-9/11 extradition treaty signed between the UK and the US, Brian and Kerry Howes of Bo’ness, West Lothian, are facing extradition to America on allegations of supplying chemicals over the internet in a conspiracy to produce crystal meth.

The couple, who deny the charges, face a preliminary extradition hearing at the high court in Edinburgh on January 14. They fear they will be remanded in custody and their four children will go into care ahead of their removal to America.



Under the terms of the treaty, the US can apply to have someone extradited without any trial taking place in the UK. On signing the Extradition Act 2003, the then home secretary, David Blunkett, removed the obligation on US law enforcement agencies to present British courts with prima facie evidence of criminality. Thanks to the Royal Prerogative, the treaty became law without parliamentary debate, which means that the US must only provide “written information” relating to an alleged wrongdoing.

Crystal meth - a form of amphetamine that has been crystallised so that it can be smoked - is a highly dangerous and addictive drug that has pervaded the poorer sections of American society for the past 20 years. Pseudoephedrine, iodine and red phosphorus are the three main chemicals required to make the drug, which produces a high that may last 12 hours or more.



Brian Howes - an amateur pyrotechnician who sold chemicals in the UK legally - denies that he and his wife broke the law by selling iodine and red phosphorus through their internet business. But federal prosecutors at the Drug Enforcement Agency in Arizona allege they were part of a drugs racket supplying a global network of meth labs in the United States, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries.

Howes said their children will have to go into care if they are remanded in custody and that his wife, Kerry, is 23 weeks pregnant and faces giving birth to their fifth child on a chain gang in Arizona. “We just want a fair trial in the UK but that is not going to happen as the extradition treaty replaces the word evidence’ with information’ - and information is accepted as true, that is the wording of the act. We have no faith in these proceedings as the files from our previous solicitors have not arrived with our current solicitors after three months, so no defence has been able to be mounted.

“In England, people are bailed right up to the House of Lords and then the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), but we will be remanded during or after the high court hearing in Edinburgh. We need help with a fund to fight in the ECHR and then we may have a chance of bail. The Scottish legal aid system does not pay for this - in England it is even afforded to people who have confessed to a crime.”
Brian Howes Family



While a passionate debate raged across Britain about the 42-day limit for terror suspects, Brian, 44, and, Kerry-Ann, 30, previously spent 214 days on remand in prison, a detention that lasted five times longer than the proposed terror suspect threshold passed by the House of Commons in June but recently rejected by the House of Lords.

People can be held on remand indefinitely under the extradition treaty.

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,

Time runs out! Should this happen with no evidence?

Time runs out!

Family await appeal verdict

Published Date: 06 June 2008

By Allan Scott

A COCKROACH-INFESTED cell in a tough Arizona jail could be home to Bo'ness businessman Brian Howes for three years as he awaits trial in the United States.

This week, Scottish justice minister Kenny MacAskill gave his approval to demands that Mr and Mrs Howes should be extradited to the United States.

Mr Howes is appealling that decision. If the appeal fails he could be in an American jail within 28 days.

The father of six then faces a lifetime behind bars if claims he illegally supplied chemicals which are used to create the deadly illegal drug crystal meth are substantiated.

Also facing a miserable future is Mr Howes' bride of three months, Kerry-Ann Howes (30).

Mr Howes (44), of Bridgeness Road, told the Journal: "I don't think either Kerry-Ann or myself is strong enough to withstand the Arizona penal system which is said to have the worst human rights record in the United States.

"Temperatures hit 140° Fahrenheit, there are chain gangs and racism. Saughton prison, where I spent seven months on remand, is a holiday camp in comparison!"

The couple, who have no funds, will have to rely on a public defender to plead their case in the US. That could mean a three-year wait before their case goes to trial.

"Cases taken by the public defender, the equivalent of our legal aid system, are seen as low priority," said Mr Howes.

"I have it on good authority that, if I had £30,000 to pay our legal costs then, if our appeals fail and we're extradited, the case could be heard within a year."

Mr Howes said he did not blame the justice minister for signing the extradition warrant.

"My information is that he was sympathetic towards us but that it was not in his power to refuse," he said.

Mr Howes insisted no firm evidence has yet been produced to link his businesses with the production of crystal meth in the United States.

He said: "I have asked Kenny MacAskill and Alex Salmond if they would, in an independent Scotland, support an extradition treaty that can see people stand trial without prima facie evidence. I have not had a reply from either of them."

He went on: "I can't envisage the damage extradition would do to our whole family.

"Our two youngest children would be take into care and the elder two would also be farmed out. As it is, my bail conditions prevent me from seeing my two children in England."

Mr and Mrs Howes face 82 charges of supplying chemicals over the internet to people believed to be involved in producing methamphetamine, commonly known as "crystal meth".

The couple were arrested in January 2007 by officers from Central Scotland Police acting on behalf of the US Drug Enforcement Agency.

At Edinburgh Sheriff Court in April, Sheriff Isabella McColl said she was satisfied the US request met the requirements of the Extradition Act. The court heard claims that chemicals supplied by the couple were traced to more than 80 illegal laboratories in the US.

The court was also told that, between August 2004-06, the couple's business was alleged to have supplied 653lb of red phosphorous and 97lb of iodine to the US.

Use of methamphetamine can lead to depression, paranoia, violent behaviour, kidney failure and internal bleeding.

Mr Howes has a son, Ryan (11), and daughter, Jessica (9), in England from a previous relationship.

He and Kerry-Ann, who were married in Bo'ness Registry Office just days before they learned that they were to be extradited, have two children, Ellie (5) and Leela (2).

Mrs Howes has two daughters, Denni (10) and Bethany (9) from a previous relationship.

Technorati Tags: brian howes, kerry howes, extradition, unfair extradition, justice minister,

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

This is the future for Brian Howes and Kerry Howes if Extradited.

By Chris Summers BBC News

Shaun Attwood, serving a nine-and-a-half-year sentence

A British stockbroker in jail in the United States has been lifting the lid on a controversial prison regime through a compelling weblog.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio forces inmates to wear pink underpants, puts women on chain gangs and brags that it costs more to feed the guard dogs than the prisoners he oversees. No surprise then that he is often called America's "toughest sheriff".

But while his hardline tactics have won him plenty of admirers among the voting public of Maricopa county, Arizona, they have outraged human rights campaigners.

Now, as Mr Arpaio seeks re-election to his job, few would have suspected one of his most vocal critics to be a 35-year-old stockbroker from Widnes, Cheshire.

Shaun Attwood landed in Mr Arpaio's authority after he was arrested in connection with raves he organised in and around Phoenix. Through a series of letters, penned from the confines of his remand centre, and published on the net, Mr Attwood has shed light on a controversial prison regime.

Hardline regime

Sheriff Arpaio's prison policies have made headlines across the United States. He reinstated chain gangs, for women and juveniles, as well as men, forces inmates to wear pink underwear and the old fashioned black and white hooped uniforms, and hit on the idea of housing minor offenders in a huge "Tent City" in the desert.

SHAUN ATTWOOD'S STORY 1991: Moves from UK to Arizona, US, and gets a job as stockbroker Late 1990s: Quits job to become a full-time rave promoter in Phoenix area May 2002: Arrested on charges of money laundering and held on remand. Jul 2004: Sentenced to nine-and-a-half years and moved to a prison with 'better conditions' Oct 2004: Still blogging and campaigning against sheriff Joe Arpaio

Mr Arpaio, whose jurisdiction covers Arizona's capital, Phoenix, is defiant about his policies although insists he runs a "humane jail system".

Nevertheless, Shaun Attwood's online diary tells a disturbing story of life in the Maricopa penal system, which he calls "subhuman". Attwood, who has since been moved to a more lenient state prison, and thus out of sheriff Arpaio's control, managed his weblog with the help of his father, Derick, back in the UK.

Fleeing the British recession of the time, Attwood, an economics graduate then fresh out of Liverpool University, moved to Phoenix in 1991 where his two aunts lived. He took local exams before getting work as a stockbroker and, as a successful day trader, earned about £1m.

But he became bored with the world of financial markets and opted to turn his hobby into a full-time job. A fan of the rave culture in Liverpool, Attwood took his love of dance music with him when he moved to the US. By the late 1990s he was organising several large raves in and around Phoenix.

It was a role which eventually saw him arrested, and convicted for money laundering and drugs offences. After more than two years in a remand prison, run by Sheriff Arpaio, he was sentenced, in July this year, to nine-and-a-half years inside.

Pencilled pleas

His weblog started after Attwood began writing to one of his aunts in Arizona. Attwood wrote his notes using a tiny, blunt pencil stub - proper pens and pencils are banned as potential weapons - and paper, which was frequently sodden from sweat because of the intense heat in the prison.

Everybody complains - but if you don't like it, you don't violate the law and you won't come back Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Although bleak and depressing, the letters were also "beautifully written and deeply moving", according to his father, Derick, to whom they were passed on. Inspired by the example of Salam Pax, the so-called Baghdad Blogger, Derick Attwood set up a weblog in an effort to publicise his son's views.

Fearing repercussions, Derick Attwood initially made the blog anonymous, calling it simply Jon's Jail Journal. A picture of Shaun Attwood was only added in the summer, after his move to the state prison.

Attwood's weblog makes disturbing reading and includes a catalogue of alleged breaches of human rights for those on remand. They include:

prison food being mixture with rotten meat, fruit and vegetables and mouldy bread. Attwood even says he saw a rat's head in one stew;

cells infested with cockroaches;

coolers which did not work and temperatures frequently touching 100°F.

No laughing matter: Ruby Wax visits prison guards in Maricopa

Speaking to the BBC News website, Mr Arpaio defended his regime.

"I feel that you should be tough on crime and run a tough jail. They don't get steaks, movies, porno, cigarettes or alcohol, but it's humane," he says. "Everybody complains - but if you don't like it, you don't violate the law and you won't come back. "

It's a record he will be judged on later this month when Mr Arpaio, along with thousands of sheriffs, police chiefs and district attorneys across the US, comes up for re-election. He will be running on a Republican party ticket.

Although his Democrat challenger Bob Ayala is highly critical of the Arpaio rule, Derick Attwood says he is unlikely to break the sheriff's stronghold.

Meanwhile, Shaun Attwood's mother, Barbara takes comfort in the belief that her son has done something to lift the lid on Maricopa county's extraordinary prison regime.

"One of the guards once told Shaun 'nobody knows what's going on in here'," says Barbara Attwood. "Well they do now."

Technorati Tags: Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Chris Summers , simon wlton, Shaun Attwood, Unfair imprisonment, brian howes

Three more years of torment - Queensferry Today

Three more years of torment

An anxious wait for news

« Previous

« Previous

Next »

Next »

View Gallery

By Allan Scott

A BO'NESS man this week spoke of the strain on his family as the courts considered a request for his extradition to America to face criminal charges.

Sheriff Isabella McColl has ruled that Brian Howes (44) and his wife, Kerry-Ann (30), who were married on April 1, should be extradited but the final decision lies with Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill.

The couple face an 82-charge indictment alleging conspiracy to supply chemicals which are illegal in the United States.

But with an appeal pending it could be years before the family knows its fate.

Said Mr Howes, of Bridgeness Road: "The last months have been extremely stressful for me, my wife Kerry-Ann, and my family. Our businesses have been destroyed and we have been unable to work.

"It will be at least a year before our appeal is heard in the High Court and if that fails we'll take it to the European courts.

"If that fails and we are, eventually, extradited to the United States we could face another two years on remand before appearing in court.

"If we survived two years of State Prison we could each face up to 98 years in jail if the authorities were able to prove we were involved in a conspiracy to manufacture illegal drugs.

"By that time our four children would be either in care or fostered out, possibly even adopted."

Mr Howes is adamant that he did not knowingly distribute red phosphorus and iodine to customers in the United States who were manufacturing methamphetamine, commonly known as crystal meth.

He alleges that the American authorities included the word "conspiracy" in the key charge, in the belief that it would force a reaction from their British counterparts.

And he said: "We've got no chance of a fair trial in the United States."
But Mr Howes, who is from the Cleveland area of northern England, had praise for the

Scottish legal system, and particularly for Sheriff Isabella McColl.

"The Procurator Fiscal was again pushing for us to be taken into custody but Sheriff McColl was strong enough to resist that and let our family stay together," he said.

He emphasised: "We took legal advice and were told that we were not breaking any laws.

"We did not know that the chemicals were being misused.

"No evidence was ever produced to extradite us and I believe extradition without evidence is wrong. We're going to take this fight as far as we have to."

However, Detective Super-intendent Dave Duffey of Cleveland Police, who led Operation Enfield – which investigated the supply of chemicals over the internet – said: "The Sheriff's decision constitutes a significant step towards finalising the extradition process."

allan@journalandgazette.co.uk

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"

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.

Taking Liberties Part 11 Posted by Brian Howes

Taking Liberties Part 11 Posted by Brian Howes

Taking Liberties Part 10 Posted by Brian Howes

Taking Liberties Part 10 Posted by Brian Howes

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 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