Bazz' raising of extraterritoriality in relation to an Australian committing an act, in Australia, that in US law is deemed an offence, is very timely. The prospect of such Australian's extradition being sought is exactly analogous to the situation in which Brian Howes finds himself in the UK.

Brian Howes was engaged in the business of supplying chemicals, chemicals lawfully able to be traded in in the UK, some of which are able to be used in the (unlawful in the US) manufacture of methamphetamine drugs. The US, it seems, contends Howes conspiratorially supplied customers in the US, customers who were running meth labs, with such precursor chemicals. Because the UK Parliament abdicated its responsibilities to its own citizens in passing the Extradition Act (UK) 2003, inasmuch as that Act obligates the UK authorities to extradite merely upon request by the US with no requirement for any extradition hearing, Brian Howes was arrested and initially imprisoned without charge for 247 days.

Howes protests his innocence of having committed any offence. Needless to say, he also protested his imprisonment without charge, let alone hearing or trial, such that the blatantly obvious loss of the rights he would have enjoyed should he have been alleged to have committed any offence against UK law became too much of an embarrassment to the UK authorities. His imprisonment was changed to house arrest, but his extradition is still being sought by the US.

The planning for celebrations leading up to the 800th anniversary, on 15 June 2015, of the signing of the Magna Carta is already under way in Britain.

But hey, Bazz, don't worry, the Australian government have already done something similar here in Australia, right through to delivering the person sought into the custody of US officials. The case of Huw Griffiths was one in which it was alleged that the accused committed offences involving breach of copyright by way of downloads of music and such, offences committed on Australian soil which were also offences under Australian law!

Guess how our lot weaseled out of that one!

TBC

Huw Griffiths was found to be (from childhood) a permanently-resident-in-Australia British subject. That made it easy for our mob. Seemingly unmindful as to the possible unconstitutionality of aspects of Australian citizenship legislation in relation to lawfully resident British subjects, our government was only too happy to hand Huw Griffiths over to the US, because he wasn't an 'Australian citizen'. Lived all his adult life in Australia, and Australia sold him out, perhaps just to dodge the costs of a prosecution!

Returning more to topic, extraterritoriality as it may relate to the law in the State of Alabama may also be an important aspect of this extradition request for Watson. Does the law in Alabama permit the prosecution of an accused person for murder when that alleged murder occurred outside that State? The Australian government should be asking that question of both the US Federal authorities and the State of Alabama.

I am suspicious in this connection because of the charge of kidnapping upon which Watson is also sought. It is difficult to see how kidnap could have been involved in this case, much as the most dreadful deception and betrayal may be, so I query as to whether such charge is present as a device for facilitating avoidance of double jeopardy issues, or for involving the US Federal authorities in a matter where there might otherwise exist a jurisdictional no-mans-land between US Federal and Alabama authorities. If such is even remotely possibly the reason for the kidnapping charge it intensifies the obligation upon the Australian government to be extra zealous in prevention of double jeopardy occurring, because such could be indicative of a prejudiced court.

Given that the side issue as to the applicability of the death penalty for murder in Alabama has been raised by the Australian government, it should also satisfy itself as to penalties for kidnapping and assurances with respect to that.

Given US conduct in the Polanski and Howes cases the Australian government has no basis for assuming the extradition request for Watson to be that of a model litigant.

Prosecutors and Judges are distinct entities. In Australia some years ago a man was convicted of the brutal rape and murder of a toddler. He was acquitted on appeal, but subsequent forensic evidence arose which lead to a further prosecution for perjury. The jury again delivered a guilty verdict, but his conviction was quashed on appeal as it was considered in breach of the double jeopardy rule.

The prosecutors in Alabama seem keen to try Watson, but why do you think he will not be tried fairly?

Bazz, I think there are a few crimes that no matter where you commit them will lead to you be prosecuted back in Australia, if you are an Australian citizen. Treason etc.

Again, this usually means you have to come back to Australia and not be extradited, especially if it is not considered a crime where the act is commited. For example, can you imagine any country extraditing you if you sold them state secrets?

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/