Several disturbing cases involving the extradition of UK citizens to the United States have exposed a serious bias and injustice embedded in our extradition agreement with the US.
I have been doing all I can to bring attention to this issue – asking questions in Parliament, taking part in debates and speaking out in the media.
In particular, I've highlighted the case of Babar Ahmad, a British citizen held without charge or trial for eight years and now threatened with extradition to the US.
A petition set up by Babar's family on the government's e-petitions website to grant him a trial here in the UK gained more than the 100,000 signatures needed to spark a full debate in Parliament, but the government refused to allow one.
When the Crown Prosecution Service admitted in November 2011 that evidence it should have received in order to make a decision in Babar’s case was sent to the United States without being assessed here first, I demanded a public inquiry.
At the end of 2011, the House of Commons passed a motion tabled by Dominic Raab MP and myself calling on the Government to urgently reform the extradition arrangements in order to better protect UK citizens. My early day motion calling for a halt to further extraditions until the flawed legislation is amended has also attracted cross-party support.
Yet today, we are still waiting for action from the government, while Babar Ahmad and others face imminent extradition.
Parliament has already made its voice clear on our unfair extradition laws. David Cameron rightly raised the matter with President Obama back in March, but the Government must now bring forward legislation to match.
Here is a selection of my work on the issue:
- At a meeting organised by the We Are Babar campaign in June, I was one of a number of MPs to speak, alongside human rights lawyer Gareth Peirce and others (video here)
- A letter on the issue was printed by the Guardian in June
- The BBC gave good coverage to the debate around Babar Ahmad's case, including this piece on Newsnight for which I was interviewed
- In this PoliticsHome article written to coincide with a meeting on extradition organised by John Hemming, I set out the case for change
- I spoke in the Backbench Business Committee debate on extradition arrangements in December 2011
- You can read my contribution to a Westminster Hall debate on extradition in November 2011 and watch the footage here
Written questions in Parliament
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Attorney-General with reference to the contribution by the Minister of State for Immigration of 5 December 2011, Official Report, column 128, on UK extradition arrangements, whether any of the evidence against Babar Ahmad that is in the possession of the US authorities was gathered by (a) UK authorities and passed to the US and (b) US authorities on UK soil.
Damian Green: I am replying as the Minister with responsibility for mutual legal assistance as that is the mechanism by which evidence is transferred from one jurisdiction to another in a criminal case. It is our usual policy neither to confirm nor deny whether the UK authorities have provided evidence or other formal assistance in support of foreign criminal proceedings so as not to prejudice those proceedings; and therefore I cannot confirm or deny whether or not that took place in this case.
Caroline Lucas: To ask the Attorney-General whether the decision not to prosecute Babar Ahmad in the UK was made after the Crown Prosecution Service had seen all of the evidence obtained by (a) the Metropolitan Police Service and (b) other authorities in the UK; and if he will make a statement.
The Attorney-General: A small number of documents seized by the Metropolitan police were submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for advice in 2004. The domestic prosecutor was asked to advise if any of these potentially fell within Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000. On the material provided there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. At the time this advice was given, domestic prosecutors were aware of the nature of the evidence in the possession of the US, but the entirety of the evidence was never subject to review in this country as it forms part of the case built by the US. The documents submitted to the CPS, even if they had amounted to an offence under Section 58, amounted to only a small fraction of the criminality alleged against Babar Ahmad by the US.
Oral questions in Parliament:
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): What recent discussions he has had with the Crown Prosecution Service on the case of Babar Ahmad.
The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve): I have had no recent discussion with the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to that matter.
Caroline Lucas: I should really like to understand what happened to the evidence in the Babar Ahmad case and, specifically, why the CPS apparently gave it directly to the United States without considering it first. Ministers have refused my written question on the matter, saying that it would “prejudice…proceedings”, so will the Attorney-General explain why and tell us what bilateral agreements are in place to allow evidence gathered by UK police about crimes alleged to have been committed in the UK to be provided to the US authorities in cases considered for trial in the US, such as that of Babar Ahmad?
The Attorney-General: As the hon. Lady will appreciate, the case is live, and that is the reason—I have no doubt—why the CPS has been guarded about any response that it can give to her. She has raised a number of very specific questions, however, and I respectfully suggest that the best thing to do is for me to write to her and to try to answer the specific matters that she raised at the end of her question.
Caroline Lucas: Will the Minister agree to investigate why the CPS acknowledged and admitted that it had not seen all the information only on 23 November, after many, many years in which Babar Ahmad had essentially been in prison? If that information had been available earlier, the process here in the UK could have been much faster.
Damian Green: I am not sure that the hon. Lady’s last point is right, but I take her general point, and obviously the CPS will have heard what she has said.
Letters to Ministers: coming soon
Join The Discussion