Under the review, which could be announced as soon as tomorrow, the Home Secretary’s hand could be strengthened and foreign authorities could be required to provide more evidence before British courts grant a request. A panel of lawyers and international relations experts, led by a judge, will also examine whether suspects accused of crimes that took place mostly in this country but affected foreign citizens should be tried at home.
David Cameron backed a change in the law before the general election and raised Mr McKinnon’s case with President Obama during his first visit to America as Prime Minister.
Any shift risks hurting relations with other nations, especially America. In the Commons yesterday, Tony Baldry, a Tory, said concerns over extradition were not helping “mutual trust”. Mrs May said: “I reflect on the importance of the relationship between the UK and the USA, but I am also aware of the comments being made outside this House and inside this chamber, that is why I think it is entirely right for the coalition government to agree that we will review that treaty.”
The review will examine five key areas of the 2003 Extradition Act, including the relationship with the US and the operation of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). More than 1,000 people were extradited from Britain under one or other procedure last year.
The US agreement was drawn up after the 9/11 attacks to help fight terrorism by allowing the swift transfer of suspects. By last year, only one terrorism suspect had been extradited under the rules.
Instead, the law has been used to target businessmen accused of fraud and minor offenders. The review panel, which will report next summer, will also assess whether the treaty with the US should change to ensure a better balance.
Currently, American authorities wanting a Briton need only show that they are suspected of a crime there and provide an accurate description of the suspect. If Britain wants to bring a US citizen here, prosecutors must show some evidence that they committed the crime.
The panel will consider whether other countries should be obliged to produce evidence that an individual is responsible for a crime. It will also examine whether judges should be able to block extradition in cases like that of Mr McKinnon. It has been argued that he should be tried here because his alleged hacking into American military and Nasa computers took place on British soil.
Crucially, the review will look at whether the Home Secretary has sufficient discretion in individual cases. Currently, the minister can only block extradition if there are clear human rights breaches. Another key focus will be how the European warrant should operate.
Last month, The Sunday Telegraph disclosed that the number of people seized in Britain under an EAW had risen more than 50 per cent in a year. Critics say the courts have little power to stop a transfer and that it is being abused to pursue people for minor offences. Foreign prosecutors do not have to present evidence. Suspects can spend long periods in jail – here and abroad – even for offences which are not crimes in Britain.
Last week, David Blunkett, one of the architects of the 2003 Act as the then home secretary, admitted that Britain “gave away too much”.
Earlier this month, a court was told that a millionaire facing extradition to the US over accusations that he tried to sell missile parts to Iran was the victim of entrapment.
The case of Christopher Tappin, a 63-year-old golf club chairman, is continuing.
Last week Malcolm Hay, an antiques dealer, told of his “scandalous” attempted deportation under European extradition laws over claims that he broke a Greek bylaw by selling broken pottery pieces to a dealer at his home in London 11 years ago.
Jago Russell, chief executive of Fair Trials International, said: “Reform of the UK’s extradition arrangements is long overdue. Cases of injustice are stacking up.”
Janis Sharp, Mr McKinnon’s mother, called for all existing US extradition cases to be put on hold while the review is under way.
“I believe the coalition government will stand up for British citizens rather than primarily serving other countries,” she said. “Our government was voted in to uphold, protect and defend our rights that British men and women died in world wars to protect.
“No government has the right to give those rights away.”
#freegary
