Friday 16 May 2014

Is the US judicial system becoming an increasingly British issue?

The last decade has seen the US seek the extradition of British citizens on quite a few occasions.  Some of the high profile extradition cases which have hit the headlines in the UK have been for alleged white-collar crime.

The cases of both the Nat West Three Bankers (who were extradited to the US in 2006) and of the retired businessman Christopher Tappin (who was extradited in 2012) not only highlighted imbalances in UK-US extradition arrangements, they also illustrated how even fairly wealthy British citizens can be disadvantaged in fighting criminal cases thousands of miles away from their homes and families.

In respect to both of these cases I mention, there was a suggestion that each case could have been tried in a British Court.  However the choice of the British authorities not to prosecute, enabled the US authorities to launch extradition proceedings, which were ultimately successful.

Following extradition to the States, both the Nat West Three and Mr Tappin agreed to plea bargains with US prosecutors, which saw the defendants accept guilty pleas in return for light prison terms.  The main conclusion I came to from following developments in both of the cases was that I could not be sure either way on the defendants' guilt or otherwise.

This week a Northampton couple, Paul and Sandra Dunham, had been due to surrender to a London Police Station, ahead of being flown out to America.  Mr and Mrs Dunham had been indicted on fraud and money laundering charges.  The alleged offences took place between 1999 and 2009, when Mr Dunham had been Chief Executive of an American company.

Whilst it is true that there is no ambiguity that the alleged crimes have taken place on American soil in this instance, the US Justice System doesn't do itself any favours.  Mr and Mrs Dunham are not in a position whereby they are likely to secure bail, in part due to the costs of supporting their living costs pre-trial, not to mention legal costs.  This would leave them both facing months in separate harsh prisons, WHICH IS SO UNFAIR!

I don't deny that the British-US relationship is very important.  There will probably always be more common ground between us, than what will divide us.  But let's remember it is not the UK's most important external relationship; the UK's most important relationship is with Europe.  The debate over whether Britain leaves the European Union will not change this.

When it comes to addressing extradition arrangements concerning alleged cases of white-collar crime, it is in both parties' interests to find a solution to protect the rights of people who are innocent until proven guilty.  Why not allow British defendants to remain in the UK on electronic tag during pre-trial proceedures, until the case is ready for trial?

I know some people reading this will respond by making noises along the lines that nothing will change, and that the UK-US relationship is hardly one of equals.  The point is though that everytime a British citizen is put on a plane to the US to face proceedings for white-collar crime, many observers expect the defendant to ultimately accept some kind of plea bargain to get out of the system sooner rather than later!

If the US really does wish to present their nation as one that upholds values of freedom and fairness, there will need to come a time when their politicians engage with British politicians on amending some extradition proceedures.  Now that Paul and Sandra Dunham have attempted to take their own lives, it does show that this issue is not just some little niggle.

As for the British political establishment, this matter does now need to be a much more presssing matter for Prime Ministers of different colours in future dealings with US Presidents!







Tuesday 13 May 2014

Swiss Restaurant charging for leftover food! WHAT A JOLLY GOOD IDEA!

Can you imagine going to a Carvery, and seeing some overweight fella piling his plate up high?  Oh, and then the bloke returns to the vegetables a few times to fill his plate all over again!  My parents once told me about going for a meal near where my Dad grew up in South Liverpool, and witnessing that very same scene.

On the other end of the scale though, the consequences of some restaurants having offers to eat as much as you like do also include instances in which customers will waste food.  This is concerning as much from a moral point of view, as it is from an environmental viewpoint.

Just a fraction of all wasted food in the world would satisfy the needs of those who are malnourished.  If trees were planted on the land currently used to grow food surpluses, then this could go some way to offset greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion.

An "all that you can eat buffet" restaurant in Switzerland has now implemented a charge of $5.65 for a customer leaving food on a plate.  Straightaway, I do identify one common sense example in which a customer has clearly been trying to experiment a new taste, and tried a very modest portion.  In that scenario, such a charge should not apply.  Otherwise I say WHAT A JOLLY GOOD IDEA!

Going back to the chap in the same restaurant as my Mum and Dad, I do realise he would be most unlikely to face a leftover food charge.  But that said eating disorders can sometimes develop over time.  If leftover food charges do become more of a norm in restaurants, then they may also become a useful tool in sending the right messages to people on a variety of points regarding food consumption.


Sunday 11 May 2014

Open Prisons must not be undervalued in Rehabilitation Process!

A very dangerous man absconded from an open prison in Kent last weekend, causing severe concern for the safety of the public in South East England.  The escaped prisoner in question, who has thankfully now been recaptured, was serving 13 life sentences for armed robberies.

Whilst this episode is more than a bit embarrassing to HM Prison Service, the relevant questions need to be directed at why such a prisoner was in an open prison in the first place, rather than why we actually have open jails.  A more pertinent question could be why this man was given a minimum tariff of just 8 years for 13 life sentences, taking on board that we are not talking about a man with no previous convictions!

Open Prisons often provide an invaluable link for low risk offenders, in terms of rehabilitation back into the community.  One ill judged decision to place an unsuitable offender must not undervalue the important work in which open prisons undertake.