The Legal Aid Board Refusal Of Senior Council Even Though The Case Needed it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2003 EXTRADITION ACT FAILURES
Email that shows the legal aid board is politically motivated by labour not to sanction senior council.
Please see below for a response I have just received from the Legal Aid Board to the e-mail I sent them recently on your behalf. It essentially is a rehash of what I was told by Mr Mullan when I spoke to him on your behalf last week. Yours, Jamie Hepburn MSP -----Original Message----- Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 2:19 PM To: Hepburn J (Jamie), MSP Subject: Brian Howes Extradition Order You should read the legal disclaimer at the end of this e-mail about the terms and conditions that apply to it. **************************************************************** ********* "Sent on Behalf of Lindsay Montgomery" Dear Mr Hepburn Thank you for your email dated 5 November 2007 on behalf of your constituent Brian Howes. I think that it might be of assistance if I set out the Board's understanding of Mr Howes' case in more detail. Mr Howes and his partner, Ms Shanks, are facing extradition proceedings at Edinburgh Sheriff Court in connection with an alleged supply of materials which, the United States authorities contend, was for the intended purposes of making the drug methamphetamine. The purpose of the extradition proceedings is not to determine guilt or otherwise in relation to the allegations surrounding the supply of drugs charges, but concerns the legality of the extradition request made by the United States. The relevant legislation is the Extradition Act 2003. Extradition hearings in Scotland take place in the Sheriff Court and currently there are four specially trained sheriffs at Edinburgh who hear such cases. Under the legal aid legislation, it is for a solicitor to apply to the Board and address why it is appropriate that sanction should be granted for the appointment of counsel in extradition proceedings. The Board would expect to be addressed on the whole facts and circumstances of the extradition, and in particular how the proceedings are so novel or complex so as to make the appointment of counsel reasonable and appropriate. This is the position as set out in our published guidelines. When the 2003 Act came into effect the Board was aware that extradition proceedings under this new Act were novel, and that as a consequence of new procedures being put in place and so on, it was appropriate in some cases that sanction for the appointment of senior counsel was granted. However, and as proceedings under the 2003 Act have become more commonplace and understood, and as there have now been reported cases on matters dealt with under the 2003 Act, the Board is of the view that the factor of 'novelty' by reason of the 2003 Act being newly in place has lost its persuasive value. The Board looks at each application for sanction for counsel on its own facts and circumstances. In some cases, solicitors are of the view that they are able to deal with proceedings and no sanction for counsel is ever made. In cases where the solicitor believes that the matter is so novel or complex that counsel is appropriate, an application can be made to the Board for junior and/or senior counsel. The Board issues full reasons for the decisions it makes. In Mr Howes' case, the Board has received a number of requests for senior counsel. I have set out a list of these applications: 1. The Board received a request for junior counsel on 14 March 2007. This was granted, and a letter issued to Mr Howes' solicitors on 16 March 2007. 2. A request for senior and junior counsel was received on 23 April 2007. The request for senior counsel was refused, and a letter was sent to Mr Howes' solicitors on 26 April 2007. 3. On 5 June 2006 the Board received a request for sanction for senior counsel to conduct a Bill of Suspension, which arose ancillary to the extradition proceedings. This Bill of Suspension related to an allegation of bias on behalf of the presiding sheriff. The nature of the allegation of bias against a sheriff means that the court would normally be expected to be addressed by senior counsel, and it is for this reason that this part of the proceedings required senior counsel. This sanction for senior counsel to conduct the Bill of Suspension proceedings was granted. 4. On 24 August 2007 the Board received a request for the employment of senior and junior counsel for the extradition proceedings. This request was refused and a letter was sent to Mr Howes' solicitors on 29 August 2007. 5. On 19 September 2007 a fresh application for senior and junior counsel was submitted. Again, this was refused and a letter was sent to Mr Howes' solicitors on 21 September 2007. Further representations were sent by Mr Howes' solicitors in connection with this particular sanction application on 2 October; 10 October; 30 October and 31 October 2007, with the Board's respective responses sent 4 October; 12 October and 31 October 2007. I requested that our Head of Criminal Legal Services, Mr Mullan, to again review the most recent requests for senior and junior counsel. He is of the view that, on the basis of the information available, the decision to sanction junior counsel in addition to his solicitor is reasonable and appropriate for these proceedings. The Board remains of the view that matters are not so novel or complex so as to merit the employment of both senior and junior counsel. However, should Mr Howes representations present fresh information to the Board, then we will be happy to consider this matter again. I do appreciate that if Mr Howes is convicted in the United States that this may well have important consequences for him. However, the request for sanction for counsel relates to extraction proceedings at Edinburgh Sheriff Court. The Board has considered the requests for counsel in line with its published guidance. It is worth bearing in mind that these cases are heard in the Sheriff Court and not in the High Court which deals with the most serious cases (such as murder). Further, extradition cases are, in some cases, dealt with by solicitors who do not seek the involvement of counsel (junior and senior). I trust that this is of assistance. Should you wish to discuss matters further then please let me know. Yours sincerely Lindsay Montgomery Chief Executive **************************************************************** ********* LEGAL DISCLAIMER Confidentiality: This e-mail and any attachments to it are strictly confidential and may contain privileged information. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, print, distribute, disseminate, disclose or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your computer system. Disclaimer: Any views or opinions contained in this message which do not relate to our business are not authorised by the Scottish Legal Aid Board (the "Board") and are those of the author only, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of the Board. The Board accepts no liability (including in negligence) for the consequences of any person acting, or refraining from acting, on the information contained in such e-mails. Monitoring: Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 the Board randomly monitors all email sent or received. Viruses: While this e-mail message and attachments have been checked for the presence of computer viruses, the Board does not guarantee that either are virus-free and accepts no liability for damage sustained as a result of a virus to the recipient's system or data or that of any third party. About the Scottish Legal Aid Board: To find out more about us, visit our website www.slab.org.uk. Our address is: Scottish Legal Aid Board, 44 Drumsheugh Gardens, Edinburgh EH3 7SW. Telephone: 0131 226 7061. **************************************************************** ********* ********************************************************************** "For latest news and information about all aspects of Parliamentary business, MSPs and our work, visit the Parliament's website at http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/. For information about how you can visit the Parliament, go to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/visitingHolyrood/index.htm. Watch Parliamentary business live at http://www.holyrood.tv/ The information in this e-mail transmission and any files or attachments transmitted with it are strictly confidential and may contain privileged information. It is intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed and if you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute, disclose or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete it from your computer system and notify the sender as soon as possible. While this e-mail message and attachments have been swept by the content filter software for the presence of computer viruses, the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body does not guarantee that either are virus-free and accepts no liability for damage sustained as a result of a virus. It is the recipient's responsibility to ensure that the onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments will not adversely affect their systems or data or otherwise incur liability in law."
The US has been using the UK 2003 extradition act to extradite people who have broken no UK laws knowing that they need no evidence of any kind. They also know that once you arrive in the US that even if you have done nothing Illegal that the threat of life behind bars and being remanded in custody for a long period of time while waiting trial is enough to get the extradited person to take a plea. In order to be extradited you must have committed a crime in the UK which has the corresponding crime in the US. In our case we have no criminal records and have been cleared of all wrong doing by the English and Scottish police. We have spent 214 days on remand away from our four young girls and only a thirty day hunger strike managed to get us bail. Imagine yourself and your partner without notice put in prison without charge without questioning for 7 months not even given the same rights as a common criminal. If there is anybody from the media out there that would like to expand on this horrific story please contact me through this email address: brian@howes.uk.net and I will respond.
|
