MPs look to change UK extradition act

Under the law, US authorities do not have to provide prima facie evidence to British courts when they want to extradite someone.

LONDON // The case of a British millionaire businessman accused by the US of plotting to sell missile parts to Iran led to calls yesterday for the "one-sided" extradition treaty between the UK and US to be fundamentally overhauled.

MPs and civil-rights campaigners have expressed their concern at a bid by the US to extradite Christopher Tappin, 63, a respected businessman from Kent and president of his county's golf society. Mr Tappin, who will face an extradition hearing in London in two weeks, is accused of agreeing to sell batteries to be used in Iranian surface-to-air missiles in a sting organised by US federal agencies. For his part, Mr Tappin claims he is innocent and that as far as he knew the deal involved batteries being sold to the Dutch car industry. He says he made just a US$500 (Dh1,835) profit from the transaction but, if extradited and convicted in the US, he could face a jail sentence of up to 35 years.

Under the 2003 Extradition Act passed by the previous Labour government, US authorities no longer have to provide prima facie evidence to British courts when they want to extradite someone. Instead, all they have to do is make an assertion of serious wrongdoing. There is, however, no reciprocity in this arrangement: British authorities still have to provide hard evidence to US courts when they try to extradite someone to the UK.

Both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats - partners in the coalition government that came to power in May - opposed the 2003 act and the Home Office is now reviewing the arrangements, although no decisions on changing them are expected for at least a year. Mr Tappin's case has now led to calls for this schedule to be dramatically expedited so that extradition between the two nations can be put on an equal footing.

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of the human-rights group Liberty, said yesterday that the US authorities should be obliged to produce evidence before a British court. "This new case must remind the government to honour the promises of both coalition parties in opposition and review our rotten extradition act," she said. "Until the act is amended to put fairness back into the system, no one who indulges in foreign holidays, business dealings or mere use of the internet is safe from being shipped off like freight on the basis of allegations from around the world."

Jo Johnson, Mr Tappin's Conservative MP, has taken up the case and has written to the home secretary, Theresa May, calling for the 2003 Extradition Act to be reformed as a matter of urgency. "The extradition treaty is one-sided and imbalanced and urgently needs to be reviewed," he said. Mr Tappin claims that he was the victim of illegal entrapment by the US authorities. "I was the victim of the unlawful conduct of US agents who pretended to belong to a false company, known as Mercury Global Enterprises. It exists solely to ensnare unsuspecting importers," he said at a press conference in London.

"When negotiating with me, and when I raised my concerns about the licence agreement, they assured me that 'this would not be a problem'. However, the same agents have been relied upon to accuse me of being responsible for not obtaining the licences. "They misled me by sending me paperwork which clearly stated 'no license required'." His case has been taken up by lawyer Karen Todner, who is also representing Gary McKinnon. Mr McKinnon is fighting extradition to the US on allegations that he hacked into Pentagon computers.

Ben Seifert, Ms Todner's spokesman, said that if Mr Tappin must face trial, then the case should be heard in Britain where his alleged crime was committed. Mr Seifert said that Mr Tappin's US partner, who was working with the US authorities after being arrested, told him that the five batteries he required were to be used in the automotive industry. "He [Tappin] never knew they were anything to do with Iran or anything to do with missiles," said Mr Seifert.

"Mr Tappin has a huge amount of experience in import and export and he assumed that these batteries were for perfectly peaceful and non-military need. "This is a case in which the customs agents caused the offence to be committed rather than merely providing an opportunity for the defendant to commit it." Mr Seifert described the agents' conduct as "misleading and dishonest", adding: "Ultimately the US agents resorted to proactive deceit and told lies in order to attempt to ensnare and entrap a respected British businessman."

Even if a court does approve Mr Tappin's extradition, the final decision will rest with the home secretary. A Home Office spokesman declined to discuss Mr Tappin's case yesterday but said: "The government is committed to reviewing the UK's extradition arrangements." @Email:[e-mail]