|
Mill Wheel
Original Poster
5,076 posts
66 months
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18625225BBC News article said: Sex offender extradition to US halted by British court
The High Court in London has blocked a US government attempt to extradite a man accused of child sex.
Shawn Sullivan, 43, won his appeal against extradition after US authorities refused to pledge he would not be placed on a controversial sex offender treatment programme.
Sullivan is described as one of the US's most-wanted alleged sex criminals.
His lawyers argued he might be placed on the programme without a trial and with no hope of release.
Sullivan, who was not in court, is accused of raping a 14-year-old girl and sexually molesting two 11-year-olds in Minnesota between 1993 and 1994.
He has a previous conviction for sexually assaulting two 12-year-old girls in Ireland, for which he was given a suspended sentence.
High Court judges Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Eady ruled on June 20 there was a real risk that, if extradited, Sullivan would be subjected to an order of civil commitment to the treatment programme in a "flagrant denial" of his human rights.
They gave the US government a last opportunity to provide an assurance that there would be no commitment order made - and assurance the US refused to give - and Sullivan's appeal under the 2003 Extradition Act was therefore allowed.
Sullivan, who has joint Irish-US nationality, was arrested in London in June 2010 while living with Ministry of Justice policy manager Sarah Smith, 34, in Barnes, south-west London.
Married in prison
They married while he was held at Wandsworth Prison, before he was granted bail.
Sullivan's lawyer, Ben Brandon, previously told the court no one had been released from the treatment programme, operated by the Department of Human Services in Minnesota, since it began in its current form in 1988.
Commitment usually followed a person completing a prison sentence but a criminal conviction was not necessary for it to take place, said Mr Brandon.
Aaron Watkins, appearing for the US government, told the court Sullivan did not satisfy the criteria for civil commitment but agreed no assurances had been given.
The judges ruled extradition might contravene Sullivan's rights under Article 5.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Justice Moses said that, under the Minnesota programme, "there is no requirement that the offences took place recently nor, indeed, that the misconduct resulted in conviction, provided that the misconduct is substantiated by credible evidence" This disgusting individual is NOT a UK citizen, he is a persistent offender and yet the judges decided that extradition MIGHT infringe his human rights. What about the human rights of his victims whom he has on several occasions infringed in the worst possible manner? Bloody good job he hadn't sold batteries for missiles to Iran, or hacked into a NASA computer!
|
|
|
Breadvan72
10,481 posts
33 months
|
Even the worst of scrotes has the right to be tried fairly before being banged up. I am surprised that the due process guarantees of the US Constitution allow the programme in question.
|
|
|
julianc
1,639 posts
129 months
|
|
|
Mutley
2,137 posts
129 months
|
This can be stopped, but we can't stop a 'hacker' being deported to face the US legal system
|
|
|
Paddy_N_Murphy
15,249 posts
54 months
|
Can't it be agreed to drop him off half way ?
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Breadvan72
10,481 posts
33 months
|
The difference lies in the presence or absence of a fair trial process. The US couldn't guarantee that the suspect would not be chucked into a treatment programme without first being tried and convicted. All the US had to do was give the assurance of a fair trial, and the suspect would have been extradited. In general, we can't choose whom we give fair trails to on the basis of what they are accused of.
As the BBC report observes: "[The Court] gave the US government a last opportunity to provide an assurance that there would be no commitment order made - an assurance the US refused to give - and Sullivan's appeal under the 2003 Extradition Act was therefore allowed."
|
|
|
Mill Wheel
Original Poster
5,076 posts
66 months
|
Breadvan72 said: Even the worst of scrotes has the right to be tried fairly before being banged up. I am surprised that the due process guarantees of the US Constitution allow the programme in question. Are we saying that the US legal system that will determine Gary Mackinon's guilt, might not be fair? I'm also shocked that a Justice Ministry policy manager has shacked up with this individual - clearly her judgement must be impaired in some way?
|
|
|
Breadvan72
10,481 posts
33 months
|
Ordinarily, there will be a trial after extradition, and the US trial system is regarded as fair, but, in this particular case, there was no assurance of a trial. That's the point which people seem not to be picking up from the report. The suspect might have been subjected to a treatment programme without first being convicted.
There's no accounting for anyone's individual judgment in choosing friends or lovers.
|
|
|
Jasandjules
45,852 posts
99 months
|
Mutley said: This can be stopped, but we can't stop a 'hacker' being deported to face the US legal system Yes, I was wondering about that. Along with a bloke who appears to have let others download copyright material. Still, as long as we know where the Judges have their priorities eh?
|
|
|
jimmy the hat
193 posts
17 months
|
Jasandjules said: Yes, I was wondering about that. Along with a bloke who appears to have let others download copyright material. Still, as long as we know where the Judges have their priorities eh? Indeed. I mean he's guilty isn't he? What's that? There hasn't been a trial yet and words like "alleged" and "accused" are being used instead of "convicted" and "guilty"? Oh well, let's not worry about trivialities like a fair legal process, eh? I hope you don't ever need a Judge to protect your Human Rights but if you do, will you be similarly scathing about them? For the sake of consistency if nothing else. Cheers, Jim
|
|
|
Breadvan72
10,481 posts
33 months
|
I feel like the woman in the Fast Show sketch whom no one can hear. I will say it again s l o w l y . The suspect in this case was not guaranteed a fair trial, and for that reason alone was not extradited. In all other recent US extradition cases, a fair trial has been guaranteed. The US had to give a simple assurance to obtain extradition, but declined to do so.
Edit: Jimmy can hear me, at least.
|
|
|
pitmansboots
1,075 posts
57 months
|
Breadvan72 said: Ordinarily, there will be a trial after extradition, and the US trial system is regarded as fair, but, in this particular case, there was no assurance of a trial. That's the point which people seem not to be picking up from the report. The suspect might have been subjected to a treatment programme without first being convicted.
There's no accounting for anyone's individual judgment in choosing friends or lovers. I noticed that too. If the US are going to remove his testicles with chemical treatment before a trial, that's not acceptable. I'm sure a lot of people will say its not acceptable after a trial too but that's debateable; it's just a different debate to whether to send him or not. We wouldn't send a their to a country to get his hands chopped off so why do that to this chap? ...and don't go down the "he supports child molestors" route after this reply.....please!
|
|
|
Devil2575
4,673 posts
58 months
|
I love it when people start banging on about human rights being a bad thing 
|
|
|
Breadvan72
10,481 posts
33 months
|
I wonder how many people would say instead: "I support convictions based on torture", or "I support punishment of suspects without trial". That is in effect what they are saying, but they put it another way.
The right to a fair trial before the application of a penal sanction is not some outlandish Euro concept - it is a fundamental of English law. The principle is the same whether someone is accused of wearing an offensive shirt, or of child molestation, but for some people the gravity of an accusation appears to be enough to dispense with the need for a trial.
I once spoke to a woman who said that if she were on a jury she would always vote to acquit as she does not trust the police, unless the offence alleged was one of child abuse, in which case she would always assume guilt. In the present case, the accused appears has form as a scumbag and may well be guilty (I don't know), but why not leave it to a jury (preferably without my acquaintance on it) to determine guilt?
|
|
|
aw51 121565
2,757 posts
103 months
|
Mill Wheel said: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18625225BBC News article said: Sex offender extradition to US halted by British court
...
Sullivan is described as one of the US's most-wanted alleged sex criminals.
His lawyers argued he might be placed on the programme without a trial and with no hope of release.
Sullivan, who was not in court, is accused of raping a 14-year-old girl and sexually molesting two 11-year-olds in Minnesota between 1993 and 1994.
... This disgusting individual is NOT a UK citizen, he is a persistent offender and yet the judges decided that extradition MIGHT infringe his human rights. What about the human rights of his alleged victims whom he has on several occasions infringed in the worst possible manner? Bloody good job he hadn't sold batteries for missiles to Iran, or hacked into a NASA computer! Edited your post for clarity; he hasn't been found guilty of these crimes to date  .
|
|
|
Devil2575
4,673 posts
58 months
|
Breadvan72 said: The right to a fair trial before the application of a penal sanction is not some outlandish Euro concept - it is a fundamental of English law. The principle is the same whether someone is accused of wearing an offensive shirt, or of child molestation, but for some people the gravity of an accusation appears to be enough to dispense with the need for a trial. You forget the fact that once they've read about the story they already have enough information to convict without a trial. After all he's obviously guilty!
|
|
|
DSM2
3,624 posts
70 months
|
Breadvan72 said: I feel like the woman in the Fast Show sketch whom no one can hear. I will say it again s l o w l y . The suspect in this case was not guaranteed a fair trial, and for that reason alone was not extradited. In all other recent US extradition cases, a fair trial has been guaranteed. The US had to give a simple assurance to obtain extradition, but declined to do so.
Edit: Jimmy can hear me, at least. The guy's a convicted pervert, he should be extradited. Give me one good reason what he has not forfeited his rights and some real evidence that he wouldn't have received as fair a trial as anyone gets. But, as usual, there are fees to be made so the obviously correct decision will be delayed as long as possible.
|
|
|
Devil2575
4,673 posts
58 months
|
DSM2 said: Breadvan72 said: I feel like the woman in the Fast Show sketch whom no one can hear. I will say it again s l o w l y . The suspect in this case was not guaranteed a fair trial, and for that reason alone was not extradited. In all other recent US extradition cases, a fair trial has been guaranteed. The US had to give a simple assurance to obtain extradition, but declined to do so.
Edit: Jimmy can hear me, at least. The guy's a convicted pervert, he should be extradited. Give me one good reason what he has not forfeited his rights and some real evidence that he wouldn't have received as fair a trial as anyone gets. But, as usual, there are fees to be made so the obviously correct decision will be delayed as long as possible. Previously convicted and punished. Just because someone has a previous conviction does that mean they should forfeit their rights? Evidence he would not have recieved a fair trial? The fact that the US cound not give that assurance.
|
|
|
Breadvan72
10,481 posts
33 months
|
As noted, the suspect has previous convictions for offences against children, but it is not for those that extradition was sought. It would be a dangerous principle to say that anyone who has once been convicted of anything thereafter has no further rights. If someone once committed a burglary, does that mean that he can be banged up without trial the next time a burglary is committed?
The US was asked to give an assurance that the suspect would not be placed into a compulsory treatment programme without first being convicted, but declined to do so - hence the doubt about fair trial.
We can't pick and choose who gets rights to due process, withholding them from people we disapprove of, or who are accused of the most distasteful offences. There are either rights for all, or for none of us.
|
|
|
Mill Wheel
Original Poster
5,076 posts
66 months
|
aw51 121565 said: Mill Wheel said: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18625225BBC News article said: Sex offender extradition to US halted by British court
...
Sullivan is described as one of the US's most-wanted alleged sex criminals.
His lawyers argued he might be placed on the programme without a trial and with no hope of release.
Sullivan, who was not in court, is accused of raping a 14-year-old girl and sexually molesting two 11-year-olds in Minnesota between 1993 and 1994.
... This disgusting individual is NOT a UK citizen, he is a persistent offender and yet the judges decided that extradition MIGHT infringe his human rights. What about the human rights of his alleged victims whom he has on several occasions infringed in the worst possible manner? Bloody good job he hadn't sold batteries for missiles to Iran, or hacked into a NASA computer! Edited your post for clarity; he hasn't been found guilty of these crimes to date . No, but he HAS been found guilty of others... BBC said: He has a previous conviction for sexually assaulting two 12-year-old girls in Ireland, for which he was given a suspended sentence. Time for that to be put into effect. I presume he won't actually BE suspended! BBC said: Aaron Watkins, appearing for the US government, told the court Sullivan did not satisfy the criteria for civil commitment but agreed no assurances had been given. It seems that all that is missing are the assurances!
|
|
