Constitutional Reform
Crime, punishment and lacklustre constitutional reform
Ian Norris always had a better case to resist extradition to the than the “Nat West Three”. His reward was to succeed where they did not: halting—or at least delaying—his departure for trial in the . The Nat West Three—David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew and Giles Darby—ran a highly visible, but ultimately unsuccessful, campaign against their extradition requests. However, in the end, the three pleaded guilty to the district court in and, on 27 February, were jailed for 37 months each in relation to a £7.3m fraud. In doing so, a considerable amount of humble pie was consumed as the defendants respectively told the court: “My conduct in this matter fell well below the standards expected”; “We lacked integrity“; and “I didn’t realise the implications”. The threesome’s case was based on the fact that the US–UK extradition treaty does not require the authorities to show any prima facie case against them to a court and, thus, impedes their fair trial rights. The treaty is, indeed, unbalanced. The constitution requires the to show “probable cause”
