Home page The presumption of guilt - Part 1 We have received comments on our home page statement that the ascension of European courts over British courts will replace the assumption of innocence by the assumption of guilt. People protest that it is stated in the Convention of Human Rights that there is an assumption of innocence so how can we state there is an assumption of guilt? There is no correspondence between what is written and what happens in practice. Yes, it is written that there is an assumption of innocence. In practice many procedures are identical to what would have happened if the person/s concerned were alread proven guilty, thus British people can be punished by having their liberty taken away before any trial has taken place. A somewhat obvious case is that of the three men who were working with the NatWest Bank. USA prosecutors allege that and in 2000 they advised the Bank to sell part of an Enron business it owned for less than the stake was worth, that they then left NatWest, bought into the firm themselves and sold it off for a much higher fee. No complaint concerning their acts have ever been raised in the United Kingdom where, indeed, it is easier to get at the facts. As it is, if the UK government extradite these men to the USA 1 they will be treated as assumed guilty by being imprisoned awaiting trial. These British subjects will, with British government complicity, be subjected to the degrading experience of life in a US jailhouse. This is presumption of guilt but subjecting them to punishment before there has been any trial. The British government wholly supports this arrangement and the more than apparent injustice which goes with it. This is not very different from the European Arrest Warrant which this government has enthusiastically supported and under which someone can be extradited from the United Kingdom to come before a European judge somewhere to be treated in the same way; imprisoned and therefore punished before there has been any trial. In Europe the outcomes are not very safe with many judges being political party appointees and failing even the most elementary tests of impartiality. In addition, the further East one goes in today's European Union the more judges have worked hand in glove with political parties and the police for well over 50 years under the former regime, a habit which is difficult to kick, even if they wanted to. These arrangments make use of law to punish as opposed to determine innocence or guilt. This state of affairs is completely unacceptable and reflects a failure of the British government, and political parties in general, to have understood what individual freedom actually means and to take all actions possible to defend the individual freedom of the people of Britain. As a people we face a crisis when we are unable to defend our freedom because British governments are content to lever the power of foreign governments and political parties to treat individuals in this country in a way which presumes guilt. Our government acts as it thinks fit and is party to a proactive abuse of British citizens. 5th July, 2006 1 A basis for complaint also resides in the fact that this extradition treaty was implemented by the UK in the context of terrorism suspects, which does not apply to these men. Secondly the UK government failed to insist on reciprocity by awaiting the USA a ratify this treaty before activating it. This failure to insist on ratification is a direct act of discrimination against British subjects by the British government who currently do not have the same safesguards as are afforded to US citizens facing extradition. For the UK government to relegate the rights of UK citizens into a secondary and inferior status to those of US citizens is completely unacceptable.