No UK trial to establish evidence of supplying global crystal-meth labs By Billy Briggs.
A SCOTS couple who have four children face the possibility of prison and extradition to America next month despite having not stood trial in a court for the crime of which they are accused.
In a case that highlights the controversial impact on British justice of the post-9/11 extradition treaty signed between the UK and the US, Brian and Kerry Howes of Bo’ness, West Lothian, are facing extradition to America on allegations of supplying chemicals over the internet in a conspiracy to produce crystal meth.
The couple, who deny the charges, face a preliminary extradition hearing at the high court in Edinburgh on January 14. They fear they will be remanded in custody and their four children will go into care ahead of their removal to America.
Under the terms of the treaty, the US can apply to have someone extradited without any trial taking place in the UK. On signing the Extradition Act 2003, the then home secretary, David Blunkett, removed the obligation on US law enforcement agencies to present British courts with prima facie evidence of criminality. Thanks to the Royal Prerogative, the treaty became law without parliamentary debate, which means that the US must only provide “written information” relating to an alleged wrongdoing.
Crystal meth – a form of amphetamine that has been crystallised so that it can be smoked – is a highly dangerous and addictive drug that has pervaded the poorer sections of American society for the past 20 years. Pseudoephedrine, iodine and red phosphorus are the three main chemicals required to make the drug, which produces a high that may last 12 hours or more.
Brian Howes – an amateur pyrotechnician who sold chemicals in the UK legally – denies that he and his wife broke the law by selling iodine and red phosphorus through their internet business. But federal prosecutors at the Drug Enforcement Agency in Arizona allege they were part of a drugs racket supplying a global network of meth labs in the United States, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and other countries.
Howes said their children will have to go into care if they are remanded in custody and that his wife, Kerry, is 23 weeks pregnant and faces giving birth to their fifth child on a chain gang in Arizona. “We just want a fair trial in the UK but that is not going to happen as the extradition treaty replaces the word evidence’ with information’ – and information is accepted as true, that is the wording of the act. We have no faith in these proceedings as the files from our previous solicitors have not arrived with our current solicitors after three months, so no defence has been able to be mounted.
“In England, people are bailed right up to the House of Lords and then the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), but we will be remanded during or after the high court hearing in Edinburgh. We need help with a fund to fight in the ECHR and then we may have a chance of bail. The Scottish legal aid system does not pay for this – in England it is even afforded to people who have confessed to a crime.”
While a passionate debate raged across Britain about the 42-day limit for terror suspects, Brian, 44, and, Kerry-Ann, 30, previously spent 214 days on remand in prison, a detention that lasted five times longer than the proposed terror suspect threshold passed by the House of Commons in June but recently rejected by the House of Lords.
People can be held on remand indefinitely under the extradition treaty.
Good luck!
> LORD MILLETT: It may, however, be helpful if I set out
> in my own words what I consider to be the elements of the
> tort of misfeasance in public office.
>
> The tort is an intentional tort which can be committed
> only by a public official. From this two things follow.
> First, the tort cannot be committed negligently or
> inadvertently. Secondly, the core concept is abuse of power.
> This in turn involves other concepts, such as dishonesty,
> bad faith, and improper purpose. These expressions are often
> used interchangeably; in some contexts one will be more
> appropriate, in other contexts another. They are all
> subjective states of mind.
>
> It is important to bear in mind that excess of power
> is not the same as abuse of power. Nor is breach of duty the
> same as abuse of power. The two must be kept distinct if the
> tort is to be kept separate from breach of statutory duty,
> which does not necessarily found a cause of action. Even a
> deliberate excess of power is not necessarily an abuse of
> power. Just as a deliberate breach of trust is not dishonest
> if it is committed by the trustee in good faith and in the
> honest belief that it is for the benefit of those in whose
> interests he is bound to act, so a conscious excess of
> official power is not necessarily dishonest. The analogy is
> closer than may appear because many of the old cases
> emphasise that the tort is concerned with the abuse of a
> power granted for the benefit of and therefore held in trust
> for the general public.
>
> The tort is generally regarded as having two limbs.
> The first limb, traditionally described as “targeted
> malice,” covers the case where the official acts with
> intent to harm the plaintiff or a class of which the
> plaintiff is a member. The second is said to cover the case
> where the official acts without such intention but in the
> knowledge that his conduct will harm the plaintiff or such a
> class. I do not agree with this formulation. In my view the
> two limbs are merely different ways in which the necessary
> element of intention is established. In the first limb it is
> established by evidence; in the second by inference.
>
> The rationale underlying the first limb is
> straightforward. Every power granted to a public official is
> granted for a public purpose. For him to exercise it for his
> own private purposes, whether out of spite, malice, revenge,
> or merely self-advancement, is an abuse of the power. It is
> immaterial in such a case whether the official exceeds his
> powers or acts according to the letter of the power: see
> Jones v. Swansea City Council [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1453 C.A. His
> deliberate use of the power of his office to injure the
> plaintiff takes his conduct outside the power, constitutes
> an abuse of the power, and satisfies any possible
> requirements of proximity and causation.
>
> The rationale of the second limb is not so
> transparent. The element of knowledge which it involves is,
> in my opinion, a means of establishing the necessary
> intention, not a substitute for it. But intention does not
> have to be proved by positive evidence. It can be inferred.
> Proof that the official concerned knew that he had no power
to act as he did and that his conduct would injure the
plaintiff is only the first step in establishing the tort.
But it may and will usually be enough for the necessary
intention, and therefore of the requisite state of mind, to
be inferred. The question is: why did the official act as he
did if he knew or suspected that he had no power to do so
and that his conduct would injure the plaintiff? As Oliver
L.J. said in Bourgoin S.A. v. Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food [1986] Q.B. 716, 777M:
“If an act is done deliberately and with
knowledge of its consequences, I do not think that the actor
can sensibly say that he did not ‘intend’ the
consequences or that the act was not ‘aimed’ at the
person who, it is known, will suffer loss.” ray mallon
criminal is knowingly abusing his position by allowing
police to falsify evidence in a case of burgalary against
neil scott after 21 arrests in 7years ,neil has only 1
conviction in 43years,but 21 since mallon became mayor as
well as data fraud in the crb disclosures for 7
years,stopping him working,rendering him unemployable as a
bus driver with a full clean licence after the speeding
allegation against him which was quashed at court when the
officer simpson lied to a court with the testimony he
gave,attempted to murder neil scott when neil was held in
custody for 11 hours denied medical assistance after neil
was assaulted in chicago rock pub,neil sustained head,
body,broken jaw injuries which ipcc
would not uphold,my cases of 21 arrests require
a public enquiree into the case against ray mallon,if one
person looks into my 21arrests and finds that if any one
officer in my cases is related to the past case operation
lancett enquiree,ray mallon is behind me being harrassed
intimidated and falsly arrested over a period of 7
years,even when i was assaulted in cells by police
officers,and the case of assaulting a police officer against
me at southbank police station,crown cout with judge fox,in which he claimed aginst me for compensation he is
connected to ray mallon because mallon was cheif superintendant at southbank at that time,there is a case
against ray mallon,ray mallon admitted 14 out of 400
offences at thhe time of operation lancett
19,11,09
I got a call last night about going to court today for the “in readiness”proceedure,my solicitor had just today received another testimony from police that they have an expert in for the footware entry as evidence,into my case of burgalary allegations,up todate when i was first arrested and taken for the first interveiw,i was tol of 1 dna blood sample 23march 09,i was allowed bail till the 30march09,the second interveiw on that date there was three dna blood samples for evidence the ones i sent 2 went missing,now at court today they have forensics for the trainers prints found in the house,a match to me,as stated by forensics,today,doc201109,is the custody record of me being held in custody from 10am till 3pm returning only to court 4 times on that day,when it was allowed to be reconvened to a later date court hearing from 26nov to 2 december 09 i was sent back to the cells to get my belongings the judge looked confused and asked where i was going ,my
solicitor says to get my belongings the judge didnt realise id benn locked up since 10 am ,copy abovethe judge was upset that my solicitor could not go to court on 26nov because of not being ready,he stated that police kept bringing in new evidence that we were suppose to contest ,the judge made it clear he was not happy to the point ofhe wasnt going to allow any further delay even if it meant to get my alibi for the new evidence given today,my solicitor and the guard stated that it was wrong for new evidence to be turning up when a court today when a date had been conviened for the date 26nov09,for trail,then my solicitor stated it was allowed by police to do this
it necer once occured that id been telling them to look for another at any time during the police investigation into burgalary allegations,the neighbour thinks i did it,the detective falsified evidence to suggest i did it,the dna at the house states i did it,the trainers that were in the house states i did it,but i was not home that evening yet the police did not investigate my circumstances because its not there responsibility to determine my innocents,my witnesses state that id been out that evining with freinds,all night,i lied as to undermine the police to see how far they would go nowing the evidence of actual witnesses states that the only excuse for my dna and trainers to be next door is because the police didnt look into what id stated and evidenc was planted by forensics and detectives.cant wait for the court case