Yet another one escapes deportation.

#2
I take it you did not bother to read the judgment of the court?

Does the fact that the decision of the court was unanimous, and included a UK judge, not matter at all?
 
#4
#5
Probably because the good 'ole U S of A seems to think it can demand ANY UK citizen and we will meekly comply whereas the reciprocity on their behalf is exactly the square root of **** all.
 
#6
...and the ***ckers refused my (Russian) wife a spouse visa. Obviously, she should have either embezzled $400 million like Borodin, or tried to blow up half of London. Makes my time spent serving my country seems so worthwhile.
 
E

EScotia

Guest
#7
I'd be much happier if the ECHR paid the costs of keeping these people in jail if the hosting country believes them too dangerous to free, or the security costs of those not so dangerous that can be freed on bail; otherwise the hosting country's taxpayers end up paying for a decision made outside of their own control.
 
#9
Having taken your advice and following the link, If you actually think that's a balanced view I suggest you visit specsavers urgently.
Would be interested in what you disagree with in the judgment and why?
 
#10
On 27 March 2008 the applicant was transferred to Broadmoor Hospital from HMP Long Lartin because he met the criteria for detention under the United Kingdom’s mental health legislation.20. On 11 November 2011 the First-Tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Mental Health considered the applicant’s case and concluded, having considered the evidence from the applicant’s clinical care team, that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia which made it appropriate for him to continue to be liable to detention in a medical hospital for his own health and safety.

I would tend to agree that sending him to the US would not be in line with his human rights
 
E

EScotia

Guest
#11
Would be interested in what you disagree with in the judgment and why?
For a start, (B) The Facts para 19 to 22 as background then (C) Expected treatment on Extradition para 23 to 29 explaining the view of the US Dept of Justice.

It seems the ECHR has, in effect, said "We don't believe you."
 
E

EScotia

Guest
#13
On 27 March 2008 the applicant was transferred to Broadmoor Hospital from HMP Long Lartin because he met the criteria for detention under the United Kingdom’s mental health legislation.20. On 11 November 2011 the First-Tier Tribunal (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Mental Health considered the applicant’s case and concluded, having considered the evidence from the applicant’s clinical care team, that he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia which made it appropriate for him to continue to be liable to detention in a medical hospital for his own health and safety.

I would tend to agree that sending him to the US would not be in line with his human rights
I tend to disagree that his Human Rights have been endangered because his mental health can be investigated, diagnosed and catered for in the USA just as they can here.
 
#14
I tend to disagree that his Human Rights have been endangered because his mental health can be investigated, diagnosed and catered for in the USA just as they can here.
Hmm. But you can't really deport someone for being sick. Which is kinda where they're coming from I imagine.
 
E

EScotia

Guest
#15
BB, we wouldn't be extraditing him for being sick, we're extraditing him so he can be investigated for complicity in a terrorist attack. That he's ill is not in doubt but isn't the reason for deportation.
 
#16
BB, we wouldn't be extraditing him for being sick, we're extraditing him so he can be investigated for complicity in a terrorist attack. That he's ill is not in doubt but isn't the reason for deportation.
If he's not responsible for his actions in law then that dog won't hunt I'm afraid.
In any case the legal niceties must be observed.
 
#17
For a start, (B) The Facts para 19 to 22 as background then (C) Expected treatment on Extradition para 23 to 29 explaining the view of the US Dept of Justice.

It seems the ECHR has, in effect, said "We don't believe you."
I think you misunderstand. What the ECHR seek to identify is whether there is a "real risk" of incarceration in conditions that would constitute inhuman or degrading treatment.

The US Department of Justice could not give guarantees about the length of pre-trial detention, or of the facility in which the Applicant would be eventually held were he convicted. Those ambiguities created a "real risk" of incarceration in conditions that are incompatible with the Convention and thus the Applicant's extradition would have been unlawful.

Were the US to give explicit assurances on those questions I would envisage the "real risk" would be declared sufficiently mitigated.

Tellingly the judgment of the Court has not been declared as final and will not become as such for three months, which gives the US time to make the assurances if they so wish. However they have issued what is in effect an injunction preventing the UK government from proceeding with deportation.
 
#18
I tend to disagree that his Human Rights have been endangered because his mental health can be investigated, diagnosed and catered for in the USA just as they can here.
The conclusion of the Court and of the medical advice was that his incarceration in a 'supermax' detention facility would be inimical to the Applicant's mental health.

I see no reason to give more weight to your opinions than those of the medical professionals and the Court.
 
T

Taffd

Guest
#20
I haven't read any of the links and I don't intend to.

For the life of me though, I cannot understand why people are so supportive of any attempts to deny justice or human rights to anybody, especially those who, in law, must be presumed innocent.

The USA is a nation that not only condones torture, but practises it.

And if you let it happen to anyone, it can happen to you.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top