Hamza decision reveals flaws in system

Tuesday, 10th April 2012

Following the announcement that radical Islamic cleric Abu Hamza can be extradited to the US to face terrorism charges, UKIP Leader Nigel Farage said the European Court of Human Rights made a mockery of UK Acts of Parliament.

Mr Farage said: "The European Court of Human Rights has cleared the way for Abu Hamza and four others to be extradited to the USA on grave charges arising out of allegations of involvement in terrorism. If their cases do not go before the Grand Chamber of the Court, they could be on their way in three months. In one case, that will be nearly 14 years after the man was first arrested.

"That fact alone makes it important to look beyond the press releases at the underlying facts to understand just how deficient British law and the British legal system has become when it comes to extradition. Those facts demonstrate clearly that playing the Strasbourg card makes a mockery of our legal system and that the Extradition Act 2003 remains a blot on our justice system.

"Where there are grave allegations of terrorist activity, the process should involve the presentation of evidence to justify extradition followed by a speedy resolution of individual cases. There must be no working the Strasbourg system to defeat that aim. The facts of these cases show clearly that the present arrangements are not fit for purpose.

"Firstly, these men have been able to spend years playing the system. One man was arrested in August 2004 and was ordered to be extradited in November 2005. Yet here we are seven years later and he is still trying to work his ticket.

"Two defendants were arrested in 1998 and 1999 under the 1972 UK-USA Extradition Treaty which required prima facie evidence of the allegations before they could be extradited. Their cases were completed before the House of Lords in December 2001. These two have thus spent more than thirteen years working the human rights racket both here and in Strasbourg to stave off the evil day.

"It cannot be right that these cases are allowed to meander along. It is neither in the interests of justice nor of the victims for Defendants to be able to play the Strasbourg card with impunity. Nor does it exactly enhance the Defendants' right to (and desirability of) an expeditious trial.

"Secondly, it is a matter of note that Mr Hamza has been charged by the USA with offences some of which could have been tried in the UK. If it is possible for this to happen, it ought to do so unless the UK Prosecuting authorities can advance a very good case otherwise on the facts or the law. No such case or explanation has ever been so advanced.

"Thirdly, it remains a matter for grave concern that four of these Defendants can be extradited under the Extradition Act 2003 without any substantive evidence of the facts underlying the Indictments being considered.

"This is in contrast to the cases of the two men arrested in the late 1990s in respect of whom evidence was produced. Legal proceedings against them took, at most, about three years, demonstrating that being made to produce prima facie evidence need cause no delay. Without such a requirement, the business of extradition becomes an essentially 'tick box' administrative exercise, not a judicial process. No Defendant, whether he be Abu Hamza, Gary McKinnon or Christopher Tappin, should be extradited - to the EU or to anywhere else - without evidence.

"The confidence of the public in our legal system and the protection it affords our Citizens from terrorism will only be restored if these serious flaws are remedied."

Back to Latest News