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