4 ms·
It's an extradition hearing, not a court case or hearing. The judge only has to establish a few things: A) is it likely that the accused will not face a fair
by zaarn 6y ago
It's an extradition hearing, not a court case or hearing.
The judge only has to establish a few things:
A) is it likely that the accused will not face a fair trial (this has to be proven, the burden of proof is on the accused to do this)
B) the accused likely faces the death penalty (it is insufficient if death penalty exists or it is unlikely they will face it)
C) they're being accused of something that is a crime in the UK as well
D) the accusation goes beyond simple doubt (this requires no actual proof, only that there is enough proof to run a court case)
There are time limits to extradition hearings, they're not supposed to replace a proper trial and they are not a proper trial.
- nwsm 6y agoI'm not really understanding the four points. A and B would be reasons not to extradite, while C and D would be reasons to extradite.
- zaarn 6y agoCorrect yes, I thought that was fairly obvious. Generally if A or B are true, then C and D don't matter but if A or B can't be proven then there is very little formality in this kind of hearing.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y agoAnd E) That the charges are not politically motivated. If they they are (as everyone knows they are), then the UK-US extradition treaty is very clear that the extradition request has to be denied:[1] > extradition shall not be granted if the competent authority of the Requested State determines that the request was politically motivated. But in order to determine any of these issues, surely the testimony given over the past weeks is relevant. The judge has effectively said that it is irrelevant. 1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/243246/7146.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
- nullc 6y agoI don't understand why this post is greyed out. It's factual, informative, (apparently) cites the relevant treaty, and it is not flame-bait. The requirement that the extradition not be politically motivated is an important one that was omitted from the above list. One could argue that the conclusion that the material the judge considered 'irrelevant' is material relevant to the above is a subjective opinion. Fortunately, DiogenesKynikos linked the treaty so we can evaluate this for ourselves.
- lawn 6y agoDoes anyone still seriously believe that he'll face a fair trial in the US? I think that would be extremely naive.
- zaarn 6y agoBelief != Good enough in court, otherwise creationists would have had their beliefs enshrined to law.