Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Mike O'Brien (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 12 July 2006. It occurred during Adjournment debate and Emergency debate on UK-US Extradition Treaty.


UK-US Extradition Treaty

No. I have given way rather a lot, and I want to proceed with my argument and to deal with some of the points that have been raised. When challenged in another place in relation to the term ““Enron three””, my noble Friend Baroness Scotland quoted paragraph 66 of the High Court judgment, which states:"““Enron was deceived into parting with US $20,000,000.””" It is the description that is broadly used. If people are offended by it, I wish to make it clear that there is no indication that these men are anything other than innocent until proved guilty, like all persons who are accused. The allegations in this case have been reviewed at length by our courts, which say that the three individuals should stand trial in the United States. The men want their trial to take place in the UK, if trial there is to be. In dismissing their case, the High Court found that their argument was wholly unsustainable and that the extradition was lawful and in accordance with their human rights. The Serious Fraud Office has declined to prosecute—


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
448 c1406-7 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Civil liberties Evidence Extradition Enforcement Treaties Enron Reciprocal arrangements Serious Fraud Office USA US Congress NatWest Three
Legislation
Extradition Act 2003
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk