Author Topic: URGENT:Letter to David Cameron.House of Commons meeting on extradition on 20-Jun  (Read 3483 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ada

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Hey

Another letter not written by me:

EDIT: Please, send this to the MPs and the other by post direct to David Cameron and the Queen. Thank you.

ACTION ALERT Copy this open letter to your local MP urging them to attend a House of Commons meeting on extradition on 20 June:

http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/

Dear

A House of Commons Meeting on Extradition is being held on Wednesday 20 June 2012 and I urge you to attend it, listen and speak out about the many miscarriages of justice happening under the UK’s current extradition arrangements – which are urgently in need of reform and a moratorium on all pending extraditions while the mess is sorted out.

http://freetalha.org/2012/06/house-of-commons-meeting-on-extradition/

I write regarding the situation of Julian Assange, a journalist who has been detained here in the UK under house arrest for over 550 days and whose appeal against a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Swedish Judicial Authority was dismissed on 30 May 2012 by the UK Supreme Court. He applied – on very strong grounds – to have the case re-opened but this was refused on 14 June. He is currently awaiting extradition to Sweden between the dates of 29 June and 8 July 2012. He has not been charged with any crime. The Irish Supreme court has recently ruled that European law does not permit extradition when no charges have been brought.

I am deeply troubled by the decision of the UK Supreme Court to not re-open this case when very strong arguments had been presented, based on rulings by the European Court of Justice, that the Vienna Convention does not apply to the EU Framework Directive under which European Arrest Warrants are issued as the EU is not a nation state to which international treaties apply, it’s a community with its own internal governance instruments that are stand-alone in this respect.  The ECJ rulings are unequivocal on the matter. The judges based their decision to dismiss Mr Assange’s appeal on the Vienna Convention even though it had not been discussed in court (other than as a one-sentence question from one judge, instantly acknowledged as not applicable to the case by another) and no requests had been made for post-hearing written submissions on it. All three sets of post-hearing written submissions which had been requested by the court had been ruled in favour of Mr Assange and I feel therefore the decision not to re-open the case has – I’m sorry to say – more to do with not losing prestige and has deprived Mr Assange of his right to a fair trial. I therefore ask that you appeal to the Prime Minister to assert Parliamentary sovereignty in this instance and overrule the Supreme Court’s decision. It has been done before (the Pinochet case). The Prime Minister/Parliament also has the right to selectively bar the application of European Law in the UK.
There are many other controversies surrounding this case, not least of which are the conclusions the Supreme Court has reached concerning Parliament’s intentions when drafting the 2003 Extradition Act and its overruling of those intentions. I urge you to take some time to look at these resources for an outline of these controversies:

http://wlcentral.org/node/2630

http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/05/back-in-business/

I am aware that the Home Secretary Theresa May wishes to offload the legal and human rights responsibilities of her office as regards extradition entirely into the hands of the judiciary. This case is a perfect illustration of why that is such a bad idea; Ms May’s plan too subverts the primacy of Parliament and “fails to understand the nature of extradition… Extradition is diplomatic in the first instance. It becomes judicial and ultimately it is political.” Sir Menzies Campbell MP

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?gid=2011-11-24a.165.1

There are numerous instances where the case against Julian Assange has been in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998. For example, under Article 6 (the right to a fair trial) Mr Assange should have been entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal.  Julian Assange remained in Sweden for 5 weeks following the complaints made against him and offered himself for questioning. He has also offered to speak with officials regarding the case from where he is now situated in the UK. Despite this, the Swedish prosecutor – an investigating prosecutor, not an impartial one – has declined any opportunity to make reasonable contact with Mr Assange. Denying this has led to an unreasonable delay in the resolution of the case – a delay where negative public remarks by Swedish Ministers against Julian Assange (and sustained misreporting in both Swedish and UK media) would make it impossible for any court to remain unbiased. Importantly, it also dismisses the rights of the two complainants involved; if their welfare was genuinely at the fore of this case every effort should have been made to question Julian Assange when he presented himself for these purposes while still in Sweden.
It is critical to note that the allegations against Mr Assange have NOT been brought by the female complainants; the allegations have been levelled by the Swedish State. That was the whole point of his Supreme Court appeal. The women are as much victims of the Swedish State as Mr Assange himself is, as they went to police for advice about HIV testing and have publicly stated that he is not violent and they did not wish to file a complaint. One of the women has stated she felt “railroaded” by police and did not sign her witness statement, which was later amended by a politician acting as the women’s lawyer (see http://wlcentral.org/node/1418 ). After reviewing the police file, a senior Stockholm prosecutor dismissed all the allegations bar one (non-extraditable) molestation offence for further investigation, then closed the case entirely.
There is a suspicion among people I’ve spoken to that long-promised extradition reform is being delayed until after Mr Assange has left these shores, perhaps because of this http://www.scribd.com/doc/81571864/Feb12FOICase20979Reply , which shows high-level US involvement in the Scott Baker extradition review – itself suffering from excessive secrecy (along with other FOI requests concerning Mr Assange, which have all been denied). What good will reform do at that stage if, thanks to the Supreme Court verdict in his case, anything Parliament enacts in future is deemed automatically superseded by the European Civil Law system?

I urge you to sign Caroline Lucas’ Early Day Motion 128 (http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2012-13/128 ) calling for an end to these delays to urgent extradition reform, a halt to all US extraditions meanwhile, and the publication of the Baker Review evidence.

The Swedish investigating prosecutor Marianne Ny has publicly stated: “The detention time can itself be used as punishment if the offender subsequently is not convicted.”  This is in clear breach of Article 7 of the Human Rights Act – that there should be no punishment without law. I would remind you of the fact that Mr Assange has been held under house arrest for more than 550 days. He has not been charged with any crime. He is wanting for questioning regarding allegations which he had made numerous attempts to be interviewed in order to answer. Despite nearly two years of requests to be interviewed, the Swedish prosecutor refuses to use standard Mutual Legal Assistance channels to question Mr Assange in the UK, without giving any reason. The Swedish authorities say they are seeking to extradite him for questioning and yet it’s the one thing they seem least keen on doing.

Swedish media are trying to assert that the reason Mr Assange must be extradited now is because Swedish law dictates that someone must be on Swedish soil in order for formal charges to be laid. But it is also true under Swedish law that a prosecutor cannot take the decision to charge until the preliminary investigation and all questioning therein has been completed. In having already taken the decision to charge Mr Assange, Marianne Ny is breaking Swedish law. It is intolerable that in a case such as this that an investigating prosecutor would decide to charge before even hearing one side's version of events. This is what the UK's Supreme Court has now allowed to be called an impartial 'judicial authority' and it directly contradicts Parliament’s understanding of that term when drafting the 2003 Extradition Act. It cannot be allowed to stand.
It is time for Britain to formally request that Sweden does what it claims it wants to do: question Mr Assange – here, on British soil – before we start dismantling Britain’s Common Law justice system in order to facilitate the extradition of one man. I ask that this formal request be lodged with the Swedish Ambassador as a matter of urgency.

The shadow hanging over this whole case from the very beginning, of course, is the looming threat of Mr Assange’s extradition to the US, which would like to see him prosecuted for espionage for his journalistic activities. This can be facilitated very easily through Sweden’s “temporary surrender” arrangements in its bilateral treaty with the US, a clause not available in Britain’s own US treaty.

Whatever your opinion towards the work of Julian Assange and that of his organisation WikiLeaks, the British Government and MPs, as our elected representatives, will be held to account for the way in which this case has revealed the lack of protection for citizen’s rights in the UK’s extradition arrangements. This case will come to be seen as one highlighting the weakness of the UK in upholding the human rights of those who reside here. Not one of us living in the UK should feel comfortable with these processes. Should you refuse to take a stand in this case you must hold yourself accountable in allowing for the provision of unjust and unconstitutional proceedings under this government’s term.

As the extradition of Mr Assange looms nearer I must insist on an urgent response on this matter. I request the Government:

-   issues a statement in response to the matters raised in this letter, clearly indicating its position and intended response

-   that it asserts the right of Parliamentary primacy and overrides the decision of the UK Supreme Court in upholding the EAW issued by Sweden

-   that it formally lodges a request with the Swedish Ambassador that Mr Assange be questioned while he resides here in the UK

-   that it undertakes, as a matter of urgency, the long-promised reform of UK extradition law

Yours sincerely

UK Citizen
« Last Edit: June 19, 2012, 15:59:05 PM by Ada »

enrica

  • Guest
When I've sent previous letters to Cameron I've recived these answears I report here in case they can be helpful to find the ContctInfo.

Quote

Dear ***
 
Thank you for your message to the House of Commons Information Office.
 
This office provides information concerning the membership, history and proceedings of the House of Commons.  It is not part of the UK Government.  Unfortunately, we do not have an e-mail address for the Prime Minister.  However, his office may be contacted at the following address:
 
Rt Hon David Cameron MP
Prime Minister's Office
10 Downing Street
London SW1A 2AA
 
Telephone: 020 7276 3000
Website: http://www.number10.gov.uk/
 
You can also forward an email onto the Prime Minister's office via the above website by selecting the 'Contact Us' link towards the end of the home page:
 
URL: http://www.number10.gov.uk/footer/contact-us
 
Yours sincerely
***


House of Commons Information Office      Phone: 020 7219 4272
House of Commons                                    Fax: 020 7219 5839
London                                                       Email: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
SW1A 2TT                                                  Web: http://www.parliament.uk

« Last Edit: June 19, 2012, 15:00:36 PM by isis »