UK Businessman wins US Extradition Appeal

14/03/2008

The House of Lords have allowed the appeal of UK businessman Ian Norris against a judge's decision that he should be extradited to the USA to face charges of price-fixing.

The government of the United States tried to extradite Mr Norris, who is the former chief executive of Morgan Crucible, in order stand trial in Pennsylvania. The indictment against him contained four counts, including conspiracy to operate a price-fixing agreement, alleged conspiracy to obstruct justice and witness tampering, which are all deemed to have occurred between 1989 and 2000. The US government were seeking to rely on the Extradition Act 2003, which allows UK citizens to be extradited for trial to a participating country (of which the United States is one) if their conduct would constitute an offence under English law punishable by 12 months imprisonment or more.

Crucially for Mr Norris, price-fixing, as alleged by the US government, was not illegal in the UK at the time in question (although it has subsequently become a criminal offence under the Enterprise Act 2002), and the Extradition Act was therefore not applicable. The price-fixing allegation was the substantial basis of the US government's effort to extradite him and the primary thrust of their case against him.

Importantly the Lords ruled that when deciding whether conduct alleged to have occurred is an offence in relation to the Extradition Act, they transpose the alleged conduct to England and look at whether the equivalent would be an offence here, rather than looking at the actual offence. In Mr Norris' case, in relation to what became the three subsidiary counts of conspiracy to obstruct justice, witness tampering and causing a person to tamper with objects to be used in official proceedings, the Lords said that they must be viewed as if they had happened in England in contravention of English proceedings and officials rather than the actual offences which are alleged to have occurred against the American system. Clearly if the Lords had not taken this approach, then very few offences committed in foreign countries would be offences in England. This judicial transposition is therefore necessary to make the Extradition Act effective. In light of this interpretation, the subsidiary counts, which do qualify as offences under the Act, are now being considered again by the lower courts and whether extradition to the United States for trial of these would breach Mr Norris' Human Rights.

The Court's considerations when faced with an application for extradition under the Act are therefore two-fold: first, it considers whether the alleged offence would have been an offence in England possible of attracting a 12 month detention period. Second, the Court needs to assess whether extradition and trial in a foreign country, with full exposure to their penal system, would be proportionate to a British citizen's rights under the Human Rights Act.

Back to news archive