Whatever Happened to Habeas Corpus?

While admitting to a grudging admiration for David Blunkett, I had to suppress a gasp of disbelief when he admitted last week that he had perhaps taken his eye off the ball (apologies for that) when negotiating the 2003 Extradition Treaty between the UK and the USA.

It is hard to avoid using ‘blind man’ cliches when writing about how we managed to agree to the lopsided treaty, but what about Blunkett’s so-called advisors at the negotiating table, what part did the so-called ‘legal experts’ play in the negotiation? Or, God forbid, did Blunkett negotiate alone?

How could a government department agree to a treaty that, in my view, denies UK citizens their rights under common law? I’m not a lawyer, so please forgive me anyone who might feel like responding to this to enlighten me upon the legal nuances of the writ of Habeas Corpus, and the 2003 Act. I might be naive, but I know I’m not alone in feeling that the law, in this instance, is definitely an ass.

Why is the law an ass? Well, because it allows UK citizens to be sent to the USA to face charges there, charges which no judge (either here or in the USA) has examined to see if there is justification, or not. If the authorities in the USA (FBI, or even just a single state’s police force) identify a UK citizen as a suspect, then we have no alternative but to comply with any request for extradition.

Why is the treaty lopsided? Because in the reverse case, where we apply to the US to extradite one of their citizens, a judge MUST have examined the case to establish if there is indeed a case to answer. An American citizen has this right by virtue of the Fourth Amendment to the American Constitution.

Under the exact wording of the treaty, we might not have that constitutional right, but then, why haven’t we? Even if Habeas Corpus does not apply in strict legal terms, agreeing to a treaty that denies us the same rights as our US friends is just an insult. David Blunkett is not stupid, but his agreement to the terms of the treaty does beg the question, just where was his mind focused when he applied his signature to the document?

The individuals whom the treaty has affected have a right to feel aggrieved at their government’s abandonment of them. The particulars of the individual cases are irrelevant, because every UK citizen should feel that they have their government’s protection up to the point where the course of justice legitimately determines the outcome. The current situation is intolerable, and Blunkett should feel more than regret for what he agreed to.