There\’s some truth in this

Offenders fighting deportation are able to use human rights defences to avoid removal whereas Britons facing transfer under extradition laws find it almost impossible to do so, the joint committee on human rights suggested.

It means the likes of alleged computer hacker Gary McKinnon, who is fighting extradition to the US, has fewer rights than foreigners who have committed crimes in the UK and should now be deported.

How very weird that the innocent have fewer rights than the guilty.

No, this does not mean that the rights of the guilty should be reduced. Rather, that we should alter the two damn fool extradition acts we\’ve got, the EU one and the even more appalling one with the US.

8 thoughts on “There\’s some truth in this”

  1. It would be nice if Bliar could be arrested, extradited to the USA under his own crap “treaty” and then re-extradited under a European Arrest warrant to the Hague and then re-extradited back to the US and so on for the rest of his life. Don’t need a trial and even if he had one and won it he’d be re-tried and would have the extra-pleasure of contemplating his abolition of double jeapody.

  2. Comparing apples and pears a bit, that article. AFAIK the human rights then to kick in for people being deported to countries where they are likely to be tortured or killed.

    The US, despite Guantanamo and the death penalty, doesn’t offer quite the same level of risk. Hence not being able to use HR to avoid extradition. Nothing to do with your nationality, it’s about where you’re being sent and what’s likely to happen to you there.

    Having said that, the EAW and US extradition treaty are still bloody ridiculous ideas…

  3. …on the basis that “if a kid’s been here as a legal migrant for 10 years, they deserve the same rights as a citizen”. It’s reasonable to argue against that, but not an insane position to hold, and not one that comes up often (since not many people come to the UK as kids, stay there for 10 years, don’t take nationality, and commit crimes serious enough to warrant deportation whilst they’re still legally children. Not least because any parent in their right mind would get the kid UK citizenship in the first place). AFAICS, he’s the only person to whom that applies (“hard cases make bad law”, etc).

  4. @Jim, that’s a myth. What’s surprising is that you’ve repeated it while linking to an article that shows it is a myth.

    The appeal in that case attempted to use the Human Rights Act, but the reason that the appeal was successful had nothing to do with the HRA.

    The reason that it was successful is that there is supposed to be free movement within the EU, so deporting an EU national to another EU country and denying them the right to travel back again can only be done in extremely limited circumstances.

    Blaming the HRA in this case is a bit like blaming the HRA because a Welshman who commited a crime in Scotland can’t be deported to Wales.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *