Of course, the treaty also provides for the extradition of the United Kingdom to the United States. Those charged and convicted of equally serious offences were transferred to the United States under the treaty, persons who would otherwise be able to roam freely on the streets of the United Kingdom. However, the treaty is also implemented in such a way that the British courts, if they see fit, are able to prohibit extradition where it is not appropriate. Like hon. Members are fully aware that the treaty does not guarantee that anyone wanted by the United States will be extradited. Our courts are rightly active in defending the interests of justice and have used their powers to prohibit extradition where they see fit. We are committed to continuing and maintaining our excellent cooperation with the United States in the fight against cross-border crime. The treaty is a central element of this cooperation. Since we approved the extradition treaty between Great Britain and the United States in 2003, it is quite clear that the British government of the day had a truly terrible agreement – asymmetrical, sometimes ineffective and often unfair to British citizens. Countless examples in the year have shown that, from NatWest three to Christopher Tappin, from Gary McKinnon to Anne Sacoolas, the person accused of causing the dangerous driving death of Harry Dunn.
With the U.S. extradition request for Dr. Mike Lynch, a successful and entrepreneurial British businessman, we risk another serious miscarriage of justice. Dr. Lynch created an innovative data processing company called Autonomy, which until 2010 was the largest software company in the UK. In 2011, it was sold for $9 billion to Hewlett-Packard. On January 23, 2020, MP David Davis recently criticized the US Secretary of State retaining discretion to refuse extradition, while the British Foreign Secretary does not. This criticism is not based on the text of the 2003 Treaty, which imposes an equal extradition obligation on both parties, subject to the provisions of the treaty (Article 1). On the contrary, this objection is based on the wording of the national legislation governing the Secretary of State`s decision on each territory of the extradition order. My friend on the right is in the right place. I was the Shadow Minister of the Interior at the time and I was against this treaty, but in the end our party gave in because it was pedophilia, terrorism and violent crime.