Alex Stone is a British man who was extradited to the United States under the provisions of the Extradition Act 2003. No evidence was presented against him in support of the request for extradition, and after six months in a US jail the charge against him was dropped.
Extradition fight man attacks law
By Ollie Stone-Lee
BBC News political reporter
A blind British man who spent more than six months in a US jail has vowed to join the fight against the extradition laws which put him there.
Alex Stone, 34, has just returned to Britain after the original charges against him were dropped.
He says it is unfair UK laws passed in 2003 allow US prosecutors to request extradition without having to prove in UK courts there is a case to answer.
Ministers say the laws have rightly cut the time needed for extradition.
Horrified
Mr Stone's problems began towards the end of 2003 when he was living in Liberty, Missouri, with his then girlfriend and her 14-month-old child, who suffered broken bones.
"It transpired that the family and the local police decided that it must have been me who had done it, even though there was not really any evidence that I had," he said.
He said the police had been investigating but not trying to arrest him and a US lawyer had advised him to return to Britain.
“ Requests from the US are now taking an average of six to 12 months to process compared to 30 months under the old arrangements ”
Home Office spokesman
"I hoped that was the end of it, I imagined that in order to be extradited somewhere, there had to be some burden of proof," said Mr Stone.
Back in London, his British solicitor told him the US authorities could try to have him sent back to America under the new extradition laws.
Everything went quiet until November 2004 when he was horrified to discover British police were looking for him.
Terrorists
He turned himself in and was extradited under the new laws after three hearings in Bow Street Magistrates Court.
"Basically, there appeared to be no defence to extradition and no evidence at all was presented in this case," said Mr Stone.
Now he is back in his home city of London, Mr Stone said he wants people to urge their MPs to join the campaign to overturn the 2003 Extradition Act, which was brought in, part, to speed up the removal of alleged terrorists.
Almost 150 MPs have signed a parliamentary petition begun by Tory frontbencher Boris Johnson protesting about the laws, which have also been used to extradite three UK businessmen charged over the collapse of Enron.
They say the old system should be reinstated until the US ratifies its side of the extradition deal between the two countries.
'Resentful'
The fast-track law removed the old rule that US prosecutors had to show there was a prime facie case against somebody when they asked British courts to extradite a UK subject.
Mr Stone told the BBC News website: "It is not right that the British government is prepared to hand people over to a foreign power, however friendly they might be, without them needing to demonstrate there is a case to answer.
"I'm resentful that more than two years of my life has been taken away from me. I'm certainly relieved now. I probably am angry now too. I feel I was badly treated when eventually I was not tried for anything."
Mr Stone spent just more than six months in prison - during which time bail was set at $1m, unaffordable even though only 10% of it had to be paid.
'Charges'
He said he spent 23 hours a day in a cell on his own and let out for 45 minutes for a shower or to watch television. It could be called solitary confinement, he said, although there were advantages to not having to share with anybody.
"I was bored more than anything, I guess I was lonely," he said, admitting he has no way of comparing the experience to life in a British prison.
But during a visit by his mother the bail demand was dropped and Mr Stone was able to be released on a bail payment of $10,000.
Mr Stone took a lie detector test in his lawyer's office. It could not be used in court but apparently helped to persuade prosecutors to drop the original charge of first degree assault, which could have put him behind bars for between 10 and 30 years.
To have the charge dropped completely he pleaded guilty to interfering with arrest by fleeing to Britain - even though he says he was following legal advice in the US when he returned home.
He was sentenced to 179 days in prison - time he had already served while on remand for the original allegations.
Legal dilemma
Mr Stone is one of 12 suspects who have been extradited to the US since the law change. Another 31 American requests are still being processed.
His MP in Tooting, Sadiq Khan is also campaigning about the laws, which have been used against another constituent - Babar Ahmad.
A Home Office spokesman said the US/UK extradition treaty brought benefits for Britain.
It meant crimes such as computer-related offences which were unknown when the last extradition treaty was signed were now covered.
"Our experience under the new arrangements has to date been extremely positive," said the spokesman.
"Requests from the US are now taking an average of six to 12 months to process compared to 30 months under the old arrangements.
"This is much closer to the time taken to process requests by the US - five months. This benefits victims, witnesses, our courts, and the fugitive themselves."
US requests are now handled in the precisely same way as used with other European countries since 1991 and with nations like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa, he added.
Alex Stone is a blind computer science graduate from south London who had worked for a bank for ten years. In May 2003 he joined an email list for blind people, and started chatting to a woman called Alma from Kansas City. They started talking regularly on the phone as well as emailing each other. After a few months they decided they wanted to meet, so Alex made plans to fly out to Kansas City and spend a holiday with Alma that August.
In 2003, as his friendship with Alma was blossoming, Alex Stone was still blissfully unaware of the world of political treaties. Alex and Alma spent a wonderful fortnight together, and Alex met Alma’s son, one-year-old Zachary. In the light of his new relationship, he decided to take the redundancy offer he’d been made, and to move out to the US to be with Alma: ‘It was exactly what I wanted to do; I wanted to go and live out there and be with her’.
Alex sorted out his life in the UK and flew back to Kansas City in November 2003. He hadn’t been there long when the trouble began. Zachary developed a cold that wouldn’t get better. He was clearly unwell, so Alma’s mother took him to hospital to be looked at. While he was there, the doctors decided to X-ray him, and discovered that both of his arms and both of his legs were broken.
Alma rushed to hospital to be with Zachary, and Alex stayed at home in her apartment. But over the next four or five days, Alex began to feel uncomfortable, and gradually realised that suspicion was falling on him. ‘Because I was new on the scene, it was convenient for them to suspect me rather than look at their own family.’
Things got worse when a friend of the family came round to the apartment to warn him. The friend said Alma’s family might try to ‘do something stupid’. Feeling threatened, Alex moved out of Alma’s apartment into a motel. Another four days went past and, after no further contact with Alma, the police turned up. He was taken in for questioning and accused of having injured the child. The only other people who could have injured Zachary were members of Alma’s family, and according to the police they were all ‘very nice people’.
Alex wasn’t charged, and he was taken back to his motel. He contacted a lawyer, who told him that as he hadn’t been charged with anything he was free to go, and ought to get out of the US as quickly as possible. So he did; he flew home to London straight away. He’d been in the US less than a month.
Back home he discovered that the papers and TV news reports in Missouri were full of stories saying he had been charged with injuring Zachary, and that he was now in prison. Despite the inaccuracy of the reports, the fact that he had been formally charged with the crime meant things were getting more serious.
First-degree assault on a minor can carry a sentence of up to 30 years in the US.
Nothing happened for a year. Then, in November 2004, Alex’s neighbour at his old flat phoned to say that three policemen had been knocking at his door. Alex was advised to turn himself in.
Two days later he presented himself at Charing Cross Police Station, where he was arrested and extradition proceedings began.
Over the following months, and several more court appearances, he discovered that he had absolutely no defence under the Extradition Act. Simply by charging Alex with the crime, the US had the right to extradite him. Thanks to David Blunkett’s new law, the British legal system was impotent to protect him. At the end of April 2005, Alex’s family drove him to Gatwick Airport, where he was handed over to the Scotland Yard extradition squad, handcuffed, shackled, and put on a private jet to the US.
He was then transferred across the country in ‘holding cells’, and his journey ended in the county jail in (the ironically named) Liberty, Missouri. He was locked up for 23 hours a day. He was allowed to take his laptop with him to write letters, but they didn’t give him a printer, so he couldn’t print them or send them back. It took several months to get him a scanner so that he could scan in and read the letters that were sent to him. He couldn’t make international calls or send emails, so he had no contact with his family in London for many months. When his father came to visit him in September, there was a glass screen between them, and they had to talk using a telephone. For Alex, his dad might as well have been in London.
He was in jail for six and a half months. In November, Alex’s mother helped to secure bail, but he had to remain in the US. By February, his lawyers went to the public prosecutor and, in Alex’s words, ‘They said, look, you’ve got no evidence here, have you? This is not going to stand up in court, so why don’t you just drop it?’ But the prosecutors were stuck because, having gone to the trouble of extraditing Alex, they needed to find him guilty of something. Alex and his lawyers negotiated a plea bargain. He passed a polygraph test, pleaded guilty to fleeing the country (despite the fact that he did it solely on the advice of a US lawyer), and flew home to the UK in the first week of March 2006. He’d been stuck in legal limbo for over 10 months.
There is another reason why the prosecutors were prepared to accept the plea bargain. Alma’s brother had a child who was discovered to have similar injuries that dated from a time when Alex wasn’t even in the country. The mother of that child and the grandmother were prepared to testify against a family member who was suspected of injuring both children. For Alex, it was simply a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Now Alex is living in London and looking for work with a 16- month hole in his CV. ‘It is very difficult to prove you haven’t done something. This has robbed me of two and a half years of my life and cost me around £50,000 – money I will not get back. I feel angry about it, but most of all I feel very sad.’
Liberty Policy Director Gareth Crossman said:
"The Extradition Act 2003 undermines longstanding safeguards against unfair removal and unfortunately appears to be more about politics than law.”
Liberty Press Office on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128
NOTES TO EDITORS
In October 2006, Liberty, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the Bar Human Rights Council, Justice, Gareth Peirce and others unsuccessfully sought Parliamentary support for a law to provide greater protection for British citizens who may be extradited to face criminal charges abroad.
Liberty intervened in the case Government of the United States of America v Bermingham, Mulgrew and Darby, to argue that removal to the United States would engage Article 8 of the Human Rights Act which protects the right to respect for a private and family life. Liberty argued that the interference with family life caused by removal to the United States must be disproportionate if shown to be unnecessary through the ability to dispose of the case to the United Kingdom. The three were sent to the USA in July 2006.
Home Office statistics show that the US government has made 47 extradition requests since January 2004. The UK government has made 12 such requests of the US.
Liberty Briefing- The Extradition Treaty 2003:
The UK's extradition laws have been radically overhauled in recent years. The Extradition Act 2003 created a system of fast track processing of extradition applications. This means that British citizens can be removed from the UK to many jurisdictions without the need for a court to hear that there is any evidence against them. The United States is one country where the fast track process has been introduced. However, Liberty does not think that debate over extradition should focus on the US and the non reciprocal nature of our extradition procedures as this might allow principled debate to be construed as anti Americanism. In any case, summary extradition should not take place from any state.
Liberty does not believe anyone should be removed from the United Kingdom without a British Court being satisfied that there is evidence. When Liberty argued this during the passage of the Extradition Bill the government responded that the removal of safeguard would be balanced by the introduction of a protection that no-one would be removed from the UK if doing so would breach their human rights.
When extradition proceeding were taken against the Natwest 3, Liberty intervened in the High Court. We argued that this human rights protection meant that if a case could be tried in the United Kingdom, it would breach rights to a family life if someone were taken overseas. No-one should face the prospects of being held in an overseas prison awaiting trial, away from family and friends, if they can face trial in the UK. The growing international and multi-jurisdictional nature of the criminal law means that cases of this type will become increasing common.
Liberty also argued that the positive duties imposed by the Human Rights Act 1998 should require the prosecuting authorities to take steps to see if prosecution were possible. We do not believe that nearly enough has been done to bring proceedings against the Natwest 3. Writing in the Financial Times on 10 July 2006 Baroness Scotland said 'It is for the prosecuting authorities to consider whether a case should be heard in the UK.' Liberty would argue that when a failure to do so will result in a person instead facing trial on the other side of the world, the state should do more than 'consider' but take positive steps to see if prosecution is possible. Liberty would also remind Parliamentarians that when considering criminal charges, the UK prosecuting authorities need to consider not only the evidence, but also the public interest. There appears to be no public interest test in relation to extradition.
Unfortunately the case is not proceeding to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords which means that there will not be an opportunity to put forward these arguments.
Parliament urgently needs to review the grounds for permitting extradition and the protections against unfair extradition. In particular there is a need to address
The lack of evidence needed to permit extradition
The lack of an obligation in domestic law requiring a case to be heard in the UK if possible.
