skip to nav

The extradition of the NatWest Three

ARGUMENTS FOR:

The allegations against them - they are accused in the US on seven counts of defrauding their employers and investors in the energy giant Enron - are serious, and should be dealt with in America where the evidence is, and where they are assured of a fair trial, under an independent legal system similar to our own.

After exhausting almost every legal angle, including a judicial review by the Home Secretary, their two-year appeal fight against extradition was rejected this February when Lord Justice Laws ruled that their case was "perfectly properly triable in the US".

The existing extradition arrangements between Britain and the US are roughly analogous (according to Tony Blair and the Attorney General) and to alter them in this case would be to impose an unfair detriment on America. The Goverment's position is that the case has been conducted in accordance with the law, and that there are safeguards in place to protect individual human rights.
The First Post guide to the issue of the day
The view from Texas: how Americans see the case against the NatWest Three

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

The bankers have not had any wrongdoing proved against them in any British court, nor have they been charged with wrongdoing by their employers.

Under the terms of the 2003 Extradition Act, the US authorities need to provide evidence that would justify issuing a warrant for arrest in the UK, but according to the Institute of Directors, the evidence has not been fully reviewed by the parties concerned.

Tony Blair's argument is misleading. The bankers' extradition is unfair because the US Congress has not yet ratified the Act - so Britons can be extradited to America without proof of wrongdoing, but US citizens cannot similarly be extradited to Britain. Without that ratification, under the Vienna Convention the treaty now in force between the UK and the US remains the previous one of 1972 - and that one too requires prima facie evidence before a Briton can be extradited.

FIRST POSTED JULY 13, 2006

News & Comment: News & Politics