Defining white collar crime and the Extradition Act 2003

I am not being too facetious, honestly, but isn't it somewhat ironic that RBS is still trying to extract the USD6.1 million owed to them under terms of sentence by the "NatWest 3"?

Guardian article, 26th July 2009

This being the bank that through its managers' own deliberate actions was almost ruined, and had to be bailed out by taxpayers?

An example of "do as I say, not do as I do" if ever I have seen one.

But this case also reminds us of that ugly period of Blairite sycophancy to the Bush administration, and its amoral actions couched in a form of self-righteousness. A time when we joked with fear in our eyes about becoming the next State in the USA. And one of the events that seemed to confirm this was the bizarre Extradition Act of 2003, which seemed to hand the keys of our police cells to US courts. Claiming to be an important piece of anti-terrorist legislation, it was already faulty from the start in that the US had not intention of extraditing suspects to the UK. Notwithstanding this, the UK government has bent over backwards to honour its one-sided obligation to this treaty. And in at least two well known cases, it has done so willingly when terrorism was never the charge behind calls for extradition.

The Natwest 3 were one of those cases, and they changed their pleas to guilty while in the US, but then have been allowed to serve a reduced sentence in Ford open prison in the UK. A deal was clearly done; perhaps in order that Enron dirty linen wasn't aired again in public and the three could return quickly to a prison in the UK rather than languish in a US jail awaiting the end of a trial to prove their innocence.

But what about Mr McKinnon, the hacker who broke into a number of secure US websites?

BBC article 30/7/09

Surely as he is alleged to have committed the crime on UK soil, he should be tried here under UK law? Moreover, as there is no evidence that he belongs to any form of terrorist organisation, but was working alone, the Extradition Act should in no way be enforceable. It is not enough to call for Extradition because your government departments have been embarrassed by their poor online security.

The Conservatives will probably kick this legislation into the long grass when they come to power. Sadly, an opposition motion calling for a review of the Act was defeated by 54 votes earlier in the month -- maybe Labour MPs, embattled on so many fronts, cannot face opening up any more festering old wounds and so voted for stasis.

Change to the Act may come too late to save Mr McKinnon from being sent to the US. Yet maybe this is the time for our Law Lords, and not our politicians, to show some backbone. Time to take a stand for the fairness of British justice, and the right of British citizens to be tried in their own country