BBC NEWS | England | Tees | Wrongly jailed Pc denies speeding

Wrongly jailed Pc denies speeding

Mr Alam continued to protest his innocence after being jailed

A Teesside police officer, wrongly jailed when colleagues suppressed evidence is facing a charge of speeding on the day his conviction was quashed.

Pc Sultan Alam was allegedly clocked breaking a 40mph speed limit on the A66 in Middlesbrough on 19 November.

The 45-year-old of Church Lane, Acklam, pleaded not guilty in writing at Teesside Magistrates' Court on Tuesday.

He had a 1996 conviction for conspiracy to steal motor vehicle parts quashed on appeal also on 19 November last year.

Pc Alam, who joined Cleveland Police in 1984, was dismissed upon conviction and served nine months of his 18-month jail term.

'deliberately misled'

At his appeal court hearing, Lord Justice Moore-Bick ruled that police officers had "deliberately misled" the court "in order to suppress evidence".

The father-of-two has said he was targeted by fellow officers when he brought a racial discrimination case against the force in 1993.

Pc Alam returned to work with the Cleveland force on 3 March and was welcomed by Chief Constable Sean Price - the same man who has taken his speeding case to court.

In a statement Acting Deputy Chief Constable Derek Bonnard, of Cleveland Police, said: "I can confirm that Sultan Alam was stopped for exceeding the speed limit and served with a summons.

"I understand he pleaded not guilty on the basis that the information put before the court was incorrect.

"It is now a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service as to whether a summons is re-issued."

Pc Alam said a administration error was to blame. A trial has been set for May.

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"

Comment is free: Taking liberties

---

---

Taking liberties Fighting terror and preserving freedom are only contradictory aims if the government insists on permanent measures without safeguards. AC Grayling Articles * Latest * Show all Profile Webfeed All AC Grayling articles About Webfeeds November 13, 2006 11:45 AM | Printable version Perhaps the most pressing political problem we face in contemporary Britain is: how do we preserve our civil liberties while effectively combating terrorism? The conjunction of two things - the chilling survey of the current terrorist threat given by the head of MI5 last week, and the impending Queen's Speech which is sure to contain proposals for yet more civil-liberty-reducing legislation - makes finding an answer yet more urgent. Here is a suggested one. In a time of genuinely serious threat, it is justified to place temporary and careful limits on certain civil liberties, if a good case can be made for doing so. The stress lies on the words "genuinely", "temporary", "careful" and "if a good case can be made for doing so". Assume that the threat is indeed serious. Then it would be justified for the government to institute a temporary and limited regime of emergency powers - temporary in the strict sense that they lapse after 12 months, but are renewable for a further 12 months on advice provided, after examination of the need for their continuance, by two separate bodies: a panel of judges, and a committee of both houses of parliament. The proposal to renew the powers should then be debated in parliament, and voted upon. Renewal might occur every year for a number of years; some powers might be found unnecessary and allowed to lapse, and others adopted, on the same annually lapsing basis, as the nature of the threat evolves. Eventually, the threat will dissipate, and the powers can then die a grateful and automatic death. With the safeguard of annual renewability on these terms, such aids to security as monitoring of financial transactions, use of intercept evidence in court, and longer periods of remand, can be temporarily justified given the threat posed by increasingly sophisticated people intent on mass murder. What is totally unacceptable is permanent reduction of civil liberties, as currently envisaged by the government. The government's probable next leader also appears to be committed to the false proposition that security matters above all else. It matters all right - but not above liberty and justice. Those who care about the latter are unlikely to be persuaded that liberty and justice have had their day and that we must now take ourselves permanently hostage, thus in any case doing what the mass murderers are themselves bent on doing, by breaking our polity and remaking it closer to their own desire. If the government wishes to forge a consensus on the question of how to enhance security while protecting civil liberties, something close to this suggestion must be right. What possible reason, in any case, could there be for making civil-liberty-reducing measures permanent? The head of MI5 says that the terrorist threat might last a generation; a generation is a blink of an eye in historical terms. What purpose does our government think will be served by permanent limitations of liberties once the threat has passed - unless the purpose in question is the convenience of governments even in unthreatening times? For governments are ever on the alert for ways to make life easier in the face of pesky citizens who will insist on having minds of their own.

Extradition victory for ex-Morgan Crucible boss - Business News, Business - Independent.co.uk

Extradition victory for ex-Morgan Crucible boss - Business News, Business - Independent.co.uk: "Extradition victory for ex-Morgan Crucible boss

* Print Print
* Email Email

Search Search Go
Independent.co.uk Web
Bookmark & Share

* Digg It
* del.icio.us
* Facebook
* Stumbleupon

What are these?
Change font size: A | A | A

By Nick Clark
Thursday, 13 March 2008

The former Morgan Crucible chief executive Ian Norris won a 'significant victory' in his battle against extradition to America, where he faces charges of price-fixing, following a landmark ruling by the House of Lords.

Lawyers representing Mr Norris, 65, said they were 'delighted' by the law lords' decision to halt the extradition process, which would also have businesses across the UK breathing a huge sigh of relief.

Ill health prevented Mr Norris from being in court yesterday to hear the verdict, which denied that the price-fixing charge constituted conspiracy to defraud, the cornerstone of the US case for extradition against him. Mr Norris is not out of the woods yet, though, as he still has to battle charges of obstruction of justice, which could yet see him extradited. He has always vigorously denied all charges.

The US Department of Justice has been attempting"

Law.com - White & Case, Jones Day Celebrate U.K. Ruling on Extradition for Price Fixing

Law.com - White & Case, Jones Day Celebrate U.K. Ruling on Extradition for Price Fixing: "White & Case, Jones Day Celebrate U.K. Ruling on Extradition for Price Fixing

Claire Ruckin
Legal Week
March 12, 2008
Printer-friendly Email this Article Reprints & Permissions


White & Case and Jones Day are celebrating after the House of Lords blocked an attempt by the U.S. 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 Wednesday morning that White & Case client Ian Norris 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 offense in the U.K.

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 offense for price fixing existed in the U.K. prior to the enactment of the Enterprise Act 2002 and that price fixing in itself cannot be characterized as the old English common-law offense of conspiracy to defraud.

'[The] attempts to extradite Ian on this basis were of grave concern to the U.K. business community at large, human rights organizations and the political opposi"

Norris case may metamorphose into a trial - Telegraph

Norris case may metamorphose into a trial - Telegraph: "Norris case may metamorphose into a trial

Last Updated: 1:00am GMT 13/03/2008

Ian Norris's Kafka-esque nightmare is not quite over. The House of Lords has ruled that the former Morgan Crucible chief cannot be extradited to the US on price-fixing charges but he could yet end up on a free flight to America if the US authorities can make a case that he obstructed the course of justice.
# Norris tells of relief as Lords halts extradition

Mr Norris must wait to see if he can start enjoying the retirement that's been put on ice thanks to Britain's controversial extradition treaty with the US. Other businessmen can rest easier, however, after the Lords threw out the US Justice Department's bid to reframe Morgan Crucible's alleged price-fixing as the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud.
advertisement

That would have satisfied the requirement that an extraditable offence should be a crime in both countries, but at a significant cost. It would have criminalised an activity in the period prior to which it became a statutory offence, an alarming retrospective shifting of the legal goalposts.

Also celebrating yesterday was Goldshield, the drugs company being pursued by the Serious Fraud Office over allegations that it defrauded the NHS by fixing the prices of a couple of widely prescribed"

Partial victory for businessman in US extradition fight - Times Online

Partial victory for businessman in US extradition fight - Times Online: "From Times Online
March 12, 2008
Partial victory for businessman in US extradition fight
Lords rule for Ian Norris in his US extradition battle over price-fixing charges, but his legal fight is not over
Michael Herman

Read the law lords' full judgment

Ian Norris, the retired British businessman, has won a significant victory in the House of Lords today but could still be sent for trial in the US, where he is wanted on charges of price-fixing.

Five law lords unanimously ruled that price-fixing was not a criminal act in England at the time it is said to have occured. Under the current extradition rules, a British citizen can only be extradited to the US if the offence they are accused of was a crime in both jurisdictions at the time it was committed.

However, the law lords said that a separate, ancilliary charge against Mr Norris — that he tampered with documents to cover up evidence — may still constitute an extraditable offence.
Related Links

* Norris v USA: judgment in full

* Soft target or a fair cop?

* Briton's extradition fight reaches Lords

The case will now be sent back to a magistrate's court, where a judge will need to decide whether the US extradition request remains 'proportionate"