From The Evening Standard:
"America may have to produce less proof than Britain to bring a case." argues Sarah Sands about extradited Kent businessman Christopher Tappin, but "the alleged evidence against him is extremely serious and process of appeal very thorough".
The reason we should be "indignant" about this case is that under the 2003 Extradition Act anyone in the UK can be arrested on the effective say-so o a US prosecutor who does not have to present any evidence concerning the crimes alleged, merely a charge sheet or an indictment. If the paperwork is in order, the district judge has to go through a box tick exercise to secure an order for extradition.
Second, although the US Bill of Rights has admirable fair trial rights, the plea bargaining has utterly subverted these. In 98 per cent of cases, indictments are top-loaded with crimes that carry long sentences so defendants have little practical choice but to plead guilty to some lesser offence: neither a free nor a fair choice.
Third, US prisons are a byword for violence. Alleged fraudster Allen Stanford was beaten in prison so badly that his trial has only just started because of the effects on his health. Christopher Tappin is now part of that world.
Nigel Farage, leader, UKIP.
Getting the rocks out
2 hours ago
3 comments:
JH, maybe not, but I'd rather be in a UK prison with a vague hope of a fair trial than at the mercy of the Yanks.
Well said Mr Farage.
I've worked directly with human rights lawyers recently. And I quote:
"We are not in this for the human rights. We are in it for the kudos and the money".
This kind of corruption permeates the entire system on all sides and there is only one escape.
Mr Farage keeps deliberately ignoring some fundamentals and pursuing others.
Post a Comment