4 ms·

So... urge the Brits to prosecute. A violation of US law, committed outside of the USA, by a non-American, is none of the USA's business. Since it's illegal in

So... urge the Brits to prosecute. A violation of US law, committed outside of the USA, by a non-American, is none of the USA's business. Since it's illegal in Britain also, would it not make more sense (and be way less sketchy) to prosecute the guy in Britain?

tankenmate 15y ago
The Crown Prosecution Service looked at the case and decided it wouldn't be in the public interest to proceed with a case. They decided there wasn't enough evidence, indeed the Crown Prosecution Service has been denied access to the evidence that was supposedly used to extradite him.
- Natsu 15y ago
  > The Crown Prosecution Service looked at the case and decided it wouldn't be in the public interest to proceed with a case. If it's not in the public interest to do it in the UK, why is it in the public interest to do it in the USA? It seems to me that the judge is contradicting the crown here, which seems a bit off, even if you assume it's his right to do so.
  - ErrantX 15y ago
    The CPS != "the crown" (at least not today). The CPS is the UK equivalent of the DA's office. It's a political bureaucracy (I could literally complain for days about how much of a bureaucracy it is, but you'd get bored of me :)). The judge, theoretically, is more of the expert on the law and whether it should be tried - but the CPS have to decide to bring the prosecution to him/her. Which is why you regularly get cases that should be seen in court, but which a suit decides is statistically unlikely to prosecute favourably.
    - scottdw2 15y ago
      Don't English and Welsh law allow for private prosecution of crimes in cases where the CPS declines to prosecute? Wouldn't that provide an avenue of relief to the copy right holders without removing a UK citizen from the jurisdiction of UK laws? This whole thing seems troubling to me. How many US Internet companies collect VAT from sales to folks in the UK? Would that make founders of a US startup subject to extradition to the UK for tax avoidance? What if it's just a tiny DBA "company" with no liability shield? The whole thing smells rotten to me!
  - njs12345 15y ago
    I think it's somewhat unfortunate. IANAL, but I think he can be extradited because the judge thinks an offense has occurred even though the CPS has decided not to prosecute (it's what he seems to be saying here: 'Parliament has made conduct found to be contrary to S.107 (2A) criminal. No court can change the statutory offence'). Unfortunately, there's no clause in the Extradition Act in power at the moment which allows a public interest defense, so it's not the job of the judge to decide such an issue. The forum clause (linked to a bit further down) would change this.
gburt 15y ago
You could make the case there are victims in the US though, no? I don't support the concept of extradition (period, I think?), but there is a case to be made that the U.S. is aiming to protect its citizens (the media companies in this case) against wrongs.
- mjwalshe 15y ago
  so if a murderer or rapist managed to leave the US would you still say so?
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    Not the same though - if a murderer fled the US, the crime was still committed on US soil, by someone in the US at the time, against (presumably) a US resident/citizen. In other words, it's rightfully American business. The other country would simply be returning the person to the correct jurisdiction. Note that even this is not clear-cut at all - many countries will refuse extradition even in this case if there is evidence that the person will face the death sentence or torture. The USA simply doesn't have the right to prosecute crimes abroad, with no relation to the USA whatsoever - whether in defense of its citizenry or its corporations. That's what the whole concept of sovereignty is about!
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
- jQueryIsAwesome 15y ago
  So before you say/publish anything in the internet you should read the laws of every country in the world? That is just plain nonsense.
  - gburt 15y ago
    I suppose I'm talking morality more than legality.

tankenmate 15y ago

The Crown Prosecution Service looked at the case and decided it wouldn't be in the public interest to proceed with a case. They decided there wasn't enough evidence, indeed the Crown Prosecution Service has been denied access to the evidence that was supposedly used to extradite him.

Natsu 15y ago
> The Crown Prosecution Service looked at the case and decided it wouldn't be in the public interest to proceed with a case. If it's not in the public interest to do it in the UK, why is it in the public interest to do it in the USA? It seems to me that the judge is contradicting the crown here, which seems a bit off, even if you assume it's his right to do so.
- ErrantX 15y ago
  The CPS != "the crown" (at least not today). The CPS is the UK equivalent of the DA's office. It's a political bureaucracy (I could literally complain for days about how much of a bureaucracy it is, but you'd get bored of me :)). The judge, theoretically, is more of the expert on the law and whether it should be tried - but the CPS have to decide to bring the prosecution to him/her. Which is why you regularly get cases that should be seen in court, but which a suit decides is statistically unlikely to prosecute favourably.
  - scottdw2 15y ago
    Don't English and Welsh law allow for private prosecution of crimes in cases where the CPS declines to prosecute? Wouldn't that provide an avenue of relief to the copy right holders without removing a UK citizen from the jurisdiction of UK laws? This whole thing seems troubling to me. How many US Internet companies collect VAT from sales to folks in the UK? Would that make founders of a US startup subject to extradition to the UK for tax avoidance? What if it's just a tiny DBA "company" with no liability shield? The whole thing smells rotten to me!
- njs12345 15y ago
  I think it's somewhat unfortunate. IANAL, but I think he can be extradited because the judge thinks an offense has occurred even though the CPS has decided not to prosecute (it's what he seems to be saying here: 'Parliament has made conduct found to be contrary to S.107 (2A) criminal. No court can change the statutory offence'). Unfortunately, there's no clause in the Extradition Act in power at the moment which allows a public interest defense, so it's not the job of the judge to decide such an issue. The forum clause (linked to a bit further down) would change this.

gburt 15y ago

You could make the case there are victims in the US though, no? I don't support the concept of extradition (period, I think?), but there is a case to be made that the U.S. is aiming to protect its citizens (the media companies in this case) against wrongs.

mjwalshe 15y ago
so if a murderer or rapist managed to leave the US would you still say so?
- potatolicious 15y ago
  Not the same though - if a murderer fled the US, the crime was still committed on US soil, by someone in the US at the time, against (presumably) a US resident/citizen. In other words, it's rightfully American business. The other country would simply be returning the person to the correct jurisdiction. Note that even this is not clear-cut at all - many countries will refuse extradition even in this case if there is evidence that the person will face the death sentence or torture. The USA simply doesn't have the right to prosecute crimes abroad, with no relation to the USA whatsoever - whether in defense of its citizenry or its corporations. That's what the whole concept of sovereignty is about!
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
jQueryIsAwesome 15y ago
So before you say/publish anything in the internet you should read the laws of every country in the world? That is just plain nonsense.
- gburt 15y ago
  I suppose I'm talking morality more than legality.