Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
If you have a moment to read the story I posted the link to, I'd appreciate hearing your view on that. You're in a better position to answer the question than I am.
|
I'm not a US citizen, and not a lawyer, but that never stopped anyone from giving their opinion, right?
Anyway, here's the
actual ruling. TL;DR version: Under the rather heavy-handed 2003 Extradition Act, he
can be extradited to the US - and the US doesn't have to offer
a lot of evidence, given its standing as a Class 2 territory.
Okay, now for a lengthier analysis:
1. The US Government is seeking extradition because it "
identifies Richard O’Dwyer as operating, while physically in the U.K., but earning fairly substantial sums from persons in the U.S.A. from advertisements, websites enabling (exactly how is said to be crucial to this Request) films (movies) and T.V. programmes to be downloaded in breach of U.S. copyright law."
2. O'Dwyer's lawyer claims that such a request should be denied for three reasons: (1) it's not an extradition offence; (2) it would be "unjust or oppresive" by virtue of passage of time; (3) it would be disproportionate to the alleged offence.
3. It was ruled that (1) the offence is subject to the extradition under
S.137 (2) (b), since his alleged offence would be a crime under UK law (Copyright Act 1988). (2) the "passage of time" challenge has no basis, since the US can be expected to hold a fair trial, and O'Dwyer'll be able to gather and present all the evidence he can; (3) the ruling dismisses the human rights concerns offhandedly, since he has not been charged in the UK. Although his actions "
potentially permit hearing a criminal case in the U.K.", "Such a state of affairs does not demand a trial here if the competent U.K. authorities decline to act and does, in my judgement, permit one in the U.S.A."
Now it is up to the Secretary of State to decide whether O'Dwyer will be extradicted, due to the "human rights" challenge (
S.87(3)).
If I were to bet, my money would be on the US government
BTW, I strongly suggest anyone interested to read the whole ruling. It's only 9 pages long, and packed with information (including a summary of the extensive evidence arrayed by US authorities).