Teh One Who Knocks
06-29-2012, 10:52 AM
By Charles Walford - The Daily Mail
http://i.imgur.com/47Sus.png
One of America's most-wanted paedophiles can walk the streets of Britain a free man after the High Court ruled that extraditing him to the US would breach his human rights.
Convicted paedophile Shawn Sullivan has been a wanted man since 1994 for allegedly molesting two 11-year-old girls and having unlawful sex with a girl of 14 in Minnesota.
If extradited to America and found guilty he could face 25 years jail on each count.
But two senior judges demanded assurances from the US Government that Sullivan - who lives in the affluent London suburb of Barnes with his Ministry of Justice worker wife - would not be put into a controversial sex offenders' treatment programme.
Today they refused to comply, and so the judges turned down the plea to return him to the US.
Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Eady both believe the programme, known as 'civil commitment', would be a 'flagrant denial' of his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
But critics will see it as another example of the one-sided extradition treaty between the two countries.
Last week it emerged that seven times more British citizens have been sent to the US under the lopsided Extradition Act than Americans sent in the opposite direction.
Home Office figures reveal how the treaty at the centre of the case against Asperger’s sufferer Gary McKinnon is being used by the US authorities far more often than their British counterparts.
Sullivan, who has joint Irish/US nationality - who also goes under the name O'Suilleabhain - was given a suspended jail sentence in Ireland in 1996 for sexually assaulting two 12-year-old girls.
He was arrested in London in June 2010 while living with 34-year-old MoJ policy manager Sarah Smith in Barnes, South West London. They married in Wandsworth Prison before he was granted bail and tagged.
But lawyers for Sullivan - who has been put on America's most-wanted sex criminals list - said if returned he could be declared 'sexually dangerous' and jailed without trial and with no hope of release.
The judges gave the US authorities until today to give an assurance that he would not be put on the civil commitment programme and be given a fair trial.
Today Lord Justice Moses confirmed that that 'the United States will not provide an assurance' that Sullivan would not be entered into the programme.
As a result his appeal would be allowed and extradition refused.
Sullivan originally from Fort Benning, Georgia, has remained here pending extradition proceedings.
Although on the list of America's most wanted criminals he went undetected until 2007 when he was added to Interpol's most wanted list.
In December 2010 Senior District Judge Riddle said there was no reason not to order extradition and sent the request from the US Government Home Secretary Theresa May.
In February last year she rejected representations on his behalf and ordered extradition.
But in refusing to give the go ahead Lord Justice Moses said there was a 'real risk' that if sent back his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights might be violated.
Under civil commitment, the court was told, someone could be held with no hope of release even though they had not been convicted of any offence.
Lord Justice Moses added: 'I emphasise again that my judgment rests solely on my conclusion that the is a real risk that if extradited the appellant might be subject to an order for civil commitment within Minnesota, and that that amounts to a risk that he would suffer a flagrant denial of his rights.'
He said under the programme: 'There is no requirement that the offences took place recently, nor , indeed, that the misconduct resulted in conviction, provided that the misconduct is substantiated by credible evidence.'
He said because the United States may now wish to given an assurance and because if he allowed the appeal it may be to no avail, he was adjourning the case for further argument.
Mr Justice Eady agreed and said the material before them 'reveals that there is more than a fanciful risk that the appellant would become subject to the civil commitment process'.
In the absence of any undertaking 'he would suffer a flagrant breach of his rights' under the Convention, which protects against loss of liberty without a proper hearing.
http://i.imgur.com/47Sus.png
One of America's most-wanted paedophiles can walk the streets of Britain a free man after the High Court ruled that extraditing him to the US would breach his human rights.
Convicted paedophile Shawn Sullivan has been a wanted man since 1994 for allegedly molesting two 11-year-old girls and having unlawful sex with a girl of 14 in Minnesota.
If extradited to America and found guilty he could face 25 years jail on each count.
But two senior judges demanded assurances from the US Government that Sullivan - who lives in the affluent London suburb of Barnes with his Ministry of Justice worker wife - would not be put into a controversial sex offenders' treatment programme.
Today they refused to comply, and so the judges turned down the plea to return him to the US.
Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Eady both believe the programme, known as 'civil commitment', would be a 'flagrant denial' of his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
But critics will see it as another example of the one-sided extradition treaty between the two countries.
Last week it emerged that seven times more British citizens have been sent to the US under the lopsided Extradition Act than Americans sent in the opposite direction.
Home Office figures reveal how the treaty at the centre of the case against Asperger’s sufferer Gary McKinnon is being used by the US authorities far more often than their British counterparts.
Sullivan, who has joint Irish/US nationality - who also goes under the name O'Suilleabhain - was given a suspended jail sentence in Ireland in 1996 for sexually assaulting two 12-year-old girls.
He was arrested in London in June 2010 while living with 34-year-old MoJ policy manager Sarah Smith in Barnes, South West London. They married in Wandsworth Prison before he was granted bail and tagged.
But lawyers for Sullivan - who has been put on America's most-wanted sex criminals list - said if returned he could be declared 'sexually dangerous' and jailed without trial and with no hope of release.
The judges gave the US authorities until today to give an assurance that he would not be put on the civil commitment programme and be given a fair trial.
Today Lord Justice Moses confirmed that that 'the United States will not provide an assurance' that Sullivan would not be entered into the programme.
As a result his appeal would be allowed and extradition refused.
Sullivan originally from Fort Benning, Georgia, has remained here pending extradition proceedings.
Although on the list of America's most wanted criminals he went undetected until 2007 when he was added to Interpol's most wanted list.
In December 2010 Senior District Judge Riddle said there was no reason not to order extradition and sent the request from the US Government Home Secretary Theresa May.
In February last year she rejected representations on his behalf and ordered extradition.
But in refusing to give the go ahead Lord Justice Moses said there was a 'real risk' that if sent back his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights might be violated.
Under civil commitment, the court was told, someone could be held with no hope of release even though they had not been convicted of any offence.
Lord Justice Moses added: 'I emphasise again that my judgment rests solely on my conclusion that the is a real risk that if extradited the appellant might be subject to an order for civil commitment within Minnesota, and that that amounts to a risk that he would suffer a flagrant denial of his rights.'
He said under the programme: 'There is no requirement that the offences took place recently, nor , indeed, that the misconduct resulted in conviction, provided that the misconduct is substantiated by credible evidence.'
He said because the United States may now wish to given an assurance and because if he allowed the appeal it may be to no avail, he was adjourning the case for further argument.
Mr Justice Eady agreed and said the material before them 'reveals that there is more than a fanciful risk that the appellant would become subject to the civil commitment process'.
In the absence of any undertaking 'he would suffer a flagrant breach of his rights' under the Convention, which protects against loss of liberty without a proper hearing.