Some of us spoke out against the lop-sided extradition agreement the UK government struck with the USA. Under it the US authorities have wide ranging powers to detain UK business people, whilst the Uk doesnot have the same claims on US suspects. I still think the arrangements are unfair and need revision.
It was not helpful that in the first high profile case, the Nat West 3, they have switched from protesting their innocence to entering a plea bargain, pleading guilty to a serious crime and accepting 3 years in prison if the Judge agrees.I understand that they might revert to arguing their innocence to charges if the Judge does not agree.
I was standing up to protect the innocent from the delays and difficulties of transatlantic justice where there was no case to answer in the home jurisdiction. My case is weakened by the any switch to pleas of guilty in the first high profile case to hit the headlines, but it does not undermine the principle. There will be entirely innocent people, who do not have to stand trial in the UK because the Uk authorities do not think they have committed an offence who may now be under threat of extradition. I do not think the government has put in enough safefgurards, and it is notable that the US does not accept for itself the regime it now imposes on us. It is still necessary to revise this inequity despite the setback of this case.