Fury as £250,000 review says US extradition treaty is fair

Campaigners have been left baffled and angry by a long-awaited review of extradition arrangements that found the current treaty between the UK and the United States is balanced and fair.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has said the treaty is “lopsided” and the government will now be under pressure to ignore the findings of the report.

Civil rights campaigners, MPs, peers, and influential parliamentary committees have all called for the treaty to be renegotiated, saying it puts Britons at a disadvantage.

But retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Scott Baker, who led the review, found the treaty was not biased against Britons.

He also said proposed measures to allow a judge to refuse extradition where the alleged offence took place wholly or largely in the UK should be ruled out.

It follows a series of high-profile cases, including that of Glasgow-born Gary McKinnon, the alleged hacker who has been fighting extradition to the US.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said she was “baffled” by the review’s findings.

“This is not a court judgment, merely policy advice, and government cannot abdicate its responsibility to honour the promises of both coalition parties in opposition,” she said.

“Britain’s rotten extradition system stinks of human rights abuse and rank hypocrisy.”

Critics argue that it is unfair for the US to require “sufficient evidence to establish probable cause” before agreeing to extradite anyone to the UK, while Britons are not afforded the same protection.

But yesterday’s 486-page report, which cost about £250,000 to produce, said: “There is no practical difference between the information submitted to and from the United States.”

The review contradicts the findings of the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR), which called for the government to renegotiate the extradition treaty to ensure British citizens get the same protection as Americans.

Yesterday’s review also found that, despite the JCHR’s recommendation, judges should not be given the power to refuse extradition requests if the alleged offence took place wholly or largely in the UK.

“We have no evidence that any injustice is being caused by the present arrangements,” the review said.

But it called for new “guidance to be drawn up, made public and followed by prosecuting authorities when deciding whether or not to prosecute in the United Kingdom a case involving cross-border criminal conduct”.

Sir Scott said: “Most importantly, the panel believes decisions as to which country should prosecute a case should be more open and transparent and made as early as possible.”

Figures released by Sir Scott showed that between January 2004 and July 2011, there were 130 requests by the US for people to be extradited from the UK, compared with 54 requests from the UK to the US. Seven US requests were refused by the UK, compared with none of the UK’s requests.

Former shadow home secretary David Davis said the review was “inexplicable”.