28 ms·

Taken from the Crown Prosecution Service guidance[0], which isn't gospel, but is usually a pretty accurate reflection of the law, the grounds the court must con

Taken from the Crown Prosecution Service guidance[0], which isn't gospel, but is usually a pretty accurate reflection of the law, the grounds the court must consider are: - the conduct described in the warrant amounts to an extradition offence; - any of the statutory bars to extradition apply; - there is prima facie evidence of guilt (if applicable, see below); - extradition would be disproportionate or would be incompatible with the requested person’s human rights. The statutory bars to extradition, taken from the same document include whether the subject would face the death penalty. It's not clear to me from this article which of the points of law above is being argued. Some of the testimony appears (or at least the reporting of it) appears to include an element of trying to demonstrate that the extradition is politically motivated. It probably is, but they'll have to establish one of the above specific points. Note that I'm not claiming that the above points can't be established here - I'm just not seeing the direct link from the reporting on the case, in this article and others, to how they're attacking the legal aspect. [0] https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/extradition https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/extradition

raxxorrax 6y ago
> It's not clear to me from this article which of the points of law above is being argued You cannot evade injustice by referring to the law. This serves as an example that the law is broken because it allows for political prosecution. Won't be the strategy of the defense of course and not of relevance in the hearings, they do the best they can in this situation.
- tomalpha 6y ago
  I'm not claiming whether or not this is right, or serves the interests of Justice. I'm just pointing out that it appears to me that the defense team is arguing more in the court of public opinion, and less on points of law in the court itself. And to be clear: I don't really think they have much of an option - the law around extradition makes this hearing mostly a formality. There are pretty limited grounds in law to prevent it going ahead. Independent of this particular case, I don't like the fact that in UK law the process is mostly a formality for UK to USA extraditions. When the legislation was drafted after 9/11 the claim was that this was a necessary evil and would be used solely against terrorists. Like previous non-terrorist cases against bankers, 'hackers' and others, this isn't a use of the law in the way it was originally intended (well, at least what was said about intentions at the time).

raxxorrax 6y ago

> It's not clear to me from this article which of the points of law above is being argued You cannot evade injustice by referring to the law. This serves as an example that the law is broken because it allows for political prosecution. Won't be the strategy of the defense of course and not of relevance in the hearings, they do the best they can in this situation.

tomalpha 6y ago
I'm not claiming whether or not this is right, or serves the interests of Justice. I'm just pointing out that it appears to me that the defense team is arguing more in the court of public opinion, and less on points of law in the court itself. And to be clear: I don't really think they have much of an option - the law around extradition makes this hearing mostly a formality. There are pretty limited grounds in law to prevent it going ahead. Independent of this particular case, I don't like the fact that in UK law the process is mostly a formality for UK to USA extraditions. When the legislation was drafted after 9/11 the claim was that this was a necessary evil and would be used solely against terrorists. Like previous non-terrorist cases against bankers, 'hackers' and others, this isn't a use of the law in the way it was originally intended (well, at least what was said about intentions at the time).