CPS Consultation Interim Guidelines on the Handling of Cases Where the Jurisdiction to Prosecute is Shared With Prosecuting Authorities

(The Guidelines)
Submission by Mrs Julia ODwyer mother of Richard ODwyer: My first observation is that these interim guidelines do not at all reflect the announcements made in Parliament by the Home Secretary Theresa May in Oct 2012 and earlier this month in respect of the introduction of the forum bar, as you should be aware already recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Home Affairs Select Committee along with others such as Liberty etc. etc. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130114/debtext/13 0114-0002.htm#13011420000001 And as previously reported in the media http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2012/oct/16/gary-mckinnon-theresamay-extradition-live http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19957138 The Government have pledged to amend the extradition arrangements, I would question how this is going to work when these guidelines are at odds with these public statements of intention by our own elected UK government. Secondly the fact that the CPS works to do the bidding of US prosecutors leads me to question the appropriateness of the CPS producing these guidelines at all as there is quite evidently a bias in favour of extradition at all costs. A more impartial body or the involvement of such a body in producing this guidance would be more valid in my view. As the situation stands at present the US Prosecutors only have to say Jump and the CPS is only too willing to hand over British citizens who have never set foot inside the US and I am not referring to fugitives here. Despite the fact that Lord Goldsmiths earlier guidelines were already in place during the period when my own sons extradition was sought, in a letter from the CPS dated 1st August 2011 when asked by my sons solicitor Chris Wong whether in my sons (Richard ODwyer) case the existing Guidelines for the Handling of Criminal Cases between the UK and US were followed it was stated that the guidelines apply to only the most serious, sensitive or complex cases and that this case was not and is not considered to come into that category It is beyond belief that the CPS do not consider extradition is always a most serious matter, at least it will always be for the victim and their family. And in stating that my sons case was not considered to be serious it is also beyond belief then that extradition should be sought for a non -serious matter. Extradition

should be a last resort not the first, in my sons case there was no UK investigation at all, his extradition was just rubber stamped. I question whether any such guidelines will ever be followed. As you will be aware we resolved the matter ourselves via the back door route and on terms for which extradition would not even be permitted and with no assistance at all from UK authorities. You will be aware that not one American has ever been extradited to the UK for actions which have taken place on US soil http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/109001/response/272408/attach/html/3/20 12%2004%2011%20FOI%2022026%20response.pdf.html And furthermore the UK has never ever requested the extradition of a single American for any conduct occurring on US soil. http://www.scribd.com/doc/101871170/2012-08-01-FOI-23425-response-1 In view of the above why is it then that aggressive US prosecutors are allowed because of our rotten extradition act to pursue British citizens who have never been in the US and hence never fled from the scene of a crime, while UK prosecutors do not act in the same way? Of course the answer is that the US would not allow the extradition of an American on such grounds and that is exactly why the UK does not request. Plenty of reasons why the forum amendment should be introduced for cases where all or most of the alleged conduct has taken place in the UK. Other civilised countries are capable and willing to prosecute their own citizens for domestic offences rather than ship them off to the US and so should the UK. These guidelines unfortunately do not reflect public opinion nor the intention of the government and as such require further scrutiny and amendment, I refer you to David Berminghams submission on this