Press briefing from the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman on: Natwest Three, Sweeney - Paedophile Sentencing and Counter-Terrorism Strategy
Natwest Three
Asked what progress had been made on bail as an extradition date had been set, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) said that he would not get into confirming or denying times of this specific case as would be the situation in any case. As he had previously stated, the matter was being actively considered but he would not be giving a running commentary on it. Asked at what level these discussions were happening, the PMOS said that discussions would be at an official level but he did not think it was appropriate for him to provide a running commentary on discussions on any specific case.
Put that Lord Goodhart had suggested that there was not parity of evidence required, as the UK needed to produce evidence whereas the US did not, the PMOS referred journalists to what he had been saying since last week. The system before the 2003 Act meant that the US had to produce prima facie evidence for extradition from the UK to the US. Whereas going the other way, US to UK as with some 50 other countries only required "probable cause". Therefore the US had been discriminated against uniquely. The 2003 Act had brought the burden of proof into parity. It was now "probable cause" the same level of proof in effect going both ways and with 50 other countries that included members of the Council of Europe, New Zealand, Australia and Canada.
Asked whether the Foreign Secretary had raised this issue with the US Secretary of State, the PMOS said that the general issue of completing ratification of the Treaty on both sides of the Atlantic (we had not yet ratified it either) was one that was a matter of recurring discussion at that level. However even without ratification the burden of proof was as he had just set out. Asked what difference ratification would make, the PMOS said that the reason for the new treaty was to take account of the changes in the world since previous treaties. The treaty was designed to take into account changes covered by the more global way crime happened in the world and technical issues such as Internet fraud. Asked whether the burden was identical now or when the treaty got ratified, the PMOS said that the burden of proof was now the same as a result of the 2003 Act coming into effect.
Put that when the Act had been introduced Caroline Flint had seemed to say something different, the PMOS said that probable cause was our arrangement with 50 other countries and we had levelled the burden for the US from prima facie to probable cause. In response to the suggestion that the burden of proof may be comparable but that implementation was different and this was causing the complaint, the PMOS said the complaint had been that we needed to go back to a prima facie burden of proof. The government did not believe that was the case. Asked whether probable cause was defined in the same way here as in the US, the PMOS said that probable cause defined the extradition burden in both directions. The language may not be precisely the same but the effect we believed was the same.
Asked why the Prime Minister had reacted to this if he thought the playing field was level, the PMOS said, as he had last week, the Prime Minister’s concern was that the court might decide not to grant bail because they were being extradited from UK to US to stand trial on a complex case. The Prime Minister did not believe that they should be at any disadvantage to that of US citizens in a similar position. As such he wanted to make sure that they were treated no differently than they would be if they were US citizens. Put that they were regarded as fugitives as they had fought extradition and that the Prime Minister could not change the process, the PMOS said the point of the discussion was to address the bail conditions. Asked whether the Prime Minister would seek to allow them to be returned to the UK on bail, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister did not want the fact that they were UK citizens to affect their bail hearing, but we should see where the discussions went first.
Sweeney - Paedophile Sentencing
Asked whether the Prime Minister believed the sentence was too lenient, the PMOS said that the Attorney General had said after considering the case in detail that his opinion was that given Sweeney’s past history he believed that Sweeny might never be released. This was not how the case had been reported at the time and the Attorney General had, himself, said at the time that he wished to review the case. He had now carefully considered this case and come to the judgement that given the law the judge had reached the appropriate verdict. The Attorney General, the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor had each identified problems in sentencing which all three of them would make a further announcement on before the summer recess. Put that the Home Secretary still stood by his view that it was too lenient and did the Prime Minister agree and who was to blame, the PMOS said that the Prime Minister’s view was that it was perfectly proper for the Home Secretary to raise this concern. As he, the PMOS, had said at the time it was right that different parts of government reflected different priorities in this area.
The Home Secretary had been reflecting the concern that had arisen from what appeared to be a judgement seemingly at odds with the public’s common sense view of justice. The Attorney General had looked at the judgement and had reached his view based on the law. This was, as the Home Secretary had said all along that, the Attorney General’s job. It was also equally important that the Attorney General, Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor had identified the areas of sentencing, which they felt needed to be looked at in light of this. Asked if the government would cut the one-third tariff for guilty pleas and if so how would it afford the extra costs incurred, the PMOS said that it was the Home Secretary, Attorney General and the Lord Chancellor who would come to a common view on the problems associated with sentencing in that area. They would make their announcement on that common view before the summer recess. We needed to wait for this announcement before we could deal with the knock on effects.
Asked how could it no longer be out of kilter as the Prime Minister had said previously, the PMOS said that the impact of the case the Attorney General had to consider was about whether the judge had complied with the law. The follow on question was whether the law, in terms of sentencing, needed to change. Therefore the question remained, if you like, how to bring sentencing into kilter with public opinion. This was what the Home Secretary, Attorney General and the Lord Chancellor were looking at. Asked then how could Sweeney be given a sentence that everyone thought was wrong, the PMOS said it was important that people read the Attorney General’s statement in full which said that given his past history Sweeney may never be released. The judge had actually said that the continuing danger that Sweeney posed to society should be very carefully considered when reviewing the case. Put that this did not change the fact that the Home Secretary had made it clear that he disagreed with the Attorney General, the PMOS said that what the Home Secretary was making clear was that the issues about sentencing had to be addressed and they would be before the summer recess.
Asked if that could be understood to mean that the Home Secretary’s original comments had been a criticism of the guidelines not the judges, the PMOS said that it was the guidelines that, on examination, needed to change. This was why we would put forward a common position from the Home Secretary, Attorney General and the Lord Chancellor before the summer recess. Put that it remained the case that Sweeny would still have a sentence that the Home Secretary disagreed with, the PMOS said that you did not make retrospective legislation for individual cases. There had been a situation where the judge had made unique comments about the individual and the judge had made it clear, despite its lack of media coverage that in his view Sweeney may never be released. Asked why the Home Secretary had then said it was too lenient, the PMOS said that there had been discrepancy between the reportage, which had focussed on the minimum possible sentence, and the judge’s comments and as result the perception of that sentence. The Attorney General had gone through the case legally, which the Home Secretary had made a point of saying was the Attorney General’s job, and concluded that the judge had complied with the law. As a result, however, the Home Secretary, Attorney General and the Lord Chancellor would produce a new assessment of what needed to change in sentencing.
The PMOS did not think anyone could deny the level of public concern that had arisen out of this case. Therefore was it right that the Home Secretary reflected that concern and ask the Attorney General to consider the case. The Attorney General had also, himself independently, made it clear that he would review the case. As a result of that the Home Secretary, Attorney General and the Lord Chancellor would, from their different perspectives in government, bring forward proposals on sentencing. Put that the Home Secretary should have concurred with Attorney General if he had read the judgement in full, the PMOS said that the Home Secretary had been reflecting the perception that there was something seriously wrong with the judgement. Following the Attorney General’s legal assessment the analysis of what needed to happen was being brought forward.
Counter-Terrorism Strategy
Asked how the government wanted people to respond to elevations of the threat level, the PMOS said that it would depend on the nature of the threat level. We had always said that we would advise the public of any specific threat and any response that was necessary to it. In terms of the public response he was not sure the government had been short of taking and advising the appropriate action. For example there was the action that had been taken at Heathrow, which had been criticised at the time, but it had turned out to be absolutely right. Asked why the public needed to know, the PMOS said that there were times when it was right and proper that the public understood why they were seeing more armed police around Whitehall and why there were more searches and a greater presence on the underground. It was important that people understood that this was not just out of the blue but part of a wider picture. It was also important that people understood the recent operations were not ad hoc but part of a strategic counter insurgency operation. It was important that people understood the context of why a police operation took place. We had made it clear that we believed the level of the current threat to be severe.
In response to the suggestion that a terrorist might postpone his attack because of an increase to the threat warning, the PMOS said that it did not operate like that. The bigger danger was that people did not think there was a serious threat and that they became complacent. The public needed to know when they should be vigilant and alert. Complacency was a risk if the government did not talk openly about the threat level. Asked why intelligence delivered threat assessments not arrests, the PMOS said that intelligence worldwide by its very nature was often fragments of information, not a complete picture.
delicious
digg
facebook
