3 ms·

The EA2003 Part 2 applies to territories with which the UK has extradition relations in place but aren’t designated as category 1 territories. Yes, there is a t

The EA2003 Part 2 applies to territories with which the UK has extradition relations in place but aren’t designated as category 1 territories. Yes, there is a threshold requirement that a relationship should exist. No, that does not mean you automatically import all the language in a treaty into domestic law. It is not strange at all. Calling it “novel”, “strange”, “contentious”, going against what “commentators” expected (who? why do we care?), etc are all pretty much just your opinion, man. All you’re really saying is that you still don’t understand how you can have two different kinds of law and have them operate in different ways, which is perfectly okay. It’s tricky. I don’t think this HN thread is going to do a better job of figuring out if the judgment is right about the EA2003 being self-contained than the actual UK appellate court system. If we dive any deeper than “there are different kinds of law and here are the ways they usually interact” then even those of us here with law degrees are out of our depth without doing way too much research for HN. But rather than directing your ire at today’s legal reality at this judge, maybe you should be angry that the EA2003, rushed through Parliament in the wake of 9/11 with very little scrutiny as is SOP for almost all NatSec legislation floated in western democracies since then, appears to cut off the protection against extraditions of political offences for anyone — terrorists or journalists - despite this being a common exception in treaties and I think may have been a significant part of the old scheme. Just skimming old reports I think this problem may have been raised but not addressed before passage. As I said in my first post, this is a deficiency of the EA2003, not a judge making up “novel arguments” (afaik this has never been actually tested since the EA passed, so you can’t really call it novel) and creating a problem. The problem has been there for 17 years.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
The treaty was ratified after the passage of the act, and the act only applies to the US through the treaty. This is not some normal case of, "We're required by this treaty to tax pickles at 25%, but Parliament has only imposed a tax of 20%." Extradition to the US is enabled by this treaty. Without the treaty, there's no extradition in the first place. The treaty was ratified after the passage of the Extradition Act, and the government apparently felt that the terms of the treaty, including the provision on political offenses, could be implemented without further legislation.
- cormacrelf 6y ago
  Okay, but none of that can have any bearing on the interpretation of the 2003 legislation, since as you say, it was a treaty ratified by the executive after Parliament had already expressed their intention. If your point is that there is in fact an express importation of the various treaties’ terms into UK law, you need to point to the words in an Act of Parliament that say that. If your point is that the threshold requirement in the first section of Part 2 of the Act that a treaty relation exist actually constitutes an importation of treaty terms, or that an express importation is not actually required for this kind of thing, then go ahead and argue that based on UK statutory interpretation law. The defence didn’t manage it, but I look forward to seeing their attempt in any appeal proceedings. It’s not really obvious how “Extradition to the US is enabled by this treaty” is an argument for either; you’re only really saying it meets the threshold requirement, which was a given. You have to argue based on the words in the Act and UK law first, and your instinct about what treaties should mean second. Edit: While you’re at it, you’ll have to rebut quite a lot of points about the intention of Parliament in EA2003, when it deliberately omitted the previous domestic implementation of treaties that refer to political offences. Read the judgment 41-63 over and over to see what you’re up against.
  - DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
    I'm not an expert and not in a position to fully judge the legal argument, but I am aware that this is a contentious issue, and it appears to me from Assange's lawyers' arguments that it's not so open and shut. But given the judge's really absurd rulings on other issues (such as whether Assange is a journalist or whether or not he'll face a fair trial), I'm not inclined to automatically believe her interpretation is correct here. If she is correct, though, then the UK has not implemented the treaty, and more importantly, journalists in the UK are in serious danger if they report on foreign governments.

DiogenesKynikos 6y ago

The treaty was ratified after the passage of the act, and the act only applies to the US through the treaty. This is not some normal case of, "We're required by this treaty to tax pickles at 25%, but Parliament has only imposed a tax of 20%." Extradition to the US is enabled by this treaty. Without the treaty, there's no extradition in the first place. The treaty was ratified after the passage of the Extradition Act, and the government apparently felt that the terms of the treaty, including the provision on political offenses, could be implemented without further legislation.

cormacrelf 6y ago
Okay, but none of that can have any bearing on the interpretation of the 2003 legislation, since as you say, it was a treaty ratified by the executive after Parliament had already expressed their intention. If your point is that there is in fact an express importation of the various treaties’ terms into UK law, you need to point to the words in an Act of Parliament that say that. If your point is that the threshold requirement in the first section of Part 2 of the Act that a treaty relation exist actually constitutes an importation of treaty terms, or that an express importation is not actually required for this kind of thing, then go ahead and argue that based on UK statutory interpretation law. The defence didn’t manage it, but I look forward to seeing their attempt in any appeal proceedings. It’s not really obvious how “Extradition to the US is enabled by this treaty” is an argument for either; you’re only really saying it meets the threshold requirement, which was a given. You have to argue based on the words in the Act and UK law first, and your instinct about what treaties should mean second. Edit: While you’re at it, you’ll have to rebut quite a lot of points about the intention of Parliament in EA2003, when it deliberately omitted the previous domestic implementation of treaties that refer to political offences. Read the judgment 41-63 over and over to see what you’re up against.
- DiogenesKynikos 6y ago
  I'm not an expert and not in a position to fully judge the legal argument, but I am aware that this is a contentious issue, and it appears to me from Assange's lawyers' arguments that it's not so open and shut. But given the judge's really absurd rulings on other issues (such as whether Assange is a journalist or whether or not he'll face a fair trial), I'm not inclined to automatically believe her interpretation is correct here. If she is correct, though, then the UK has not implemented the treaty, and more importantly, journalists in the UK are in serious danger if they report on foreign governments.