On Mon, 12 May 2008 09:25:21 -0700 (PDT), Crown-Horned Snorkack
wrote:
>> >If the country concerned does have a fair system of justice with
>> >reasonable punishments, then the accused should have nothing to fear, if
>> >he is innocent, from extradition.
>> Apart from losing his job because he has been sent to a another
>> country.
>Very well, then consider what a proper way of proceeding might be?
The UK authorities should take no action about an act that is not a
crime in the UK.
>Imagine that a bunch of UK citizens make, say, a trip to New Zealand.
>Some incident happens involving some locals - the UKians initially do
>not see a huge problem, apologize, exchange names and addresses and
>get on their plane as scheduled.
>After the plane has departed, in a few hours, days or weeks, it turns
>out that there ARE problems. Valuables are lost, or someone becomes
>dead, crippled or pregnant.
>Where, in which court, should the accusations be proceeded with?
If the accusations are of an act that is a crime in the UK, then the
UK justice system should set up a Hearing to determine whether or not
there is sufficient evidence to have a reasonable chance of
conviction, and if so the suspects can *then* be shipped back to NZ to
stand trial.
There should be some proportionality used however. If the alleged
crime is relatively trivial so that the hardship caused by standing
trial in a distant country is disproportionate, the matter should be
dropped.
>Can an UKian be extradited to New Zealand if the said UKian is not
>accused of anything at all, but a witness to something happening?
Not as far as I am aware, no.
> And
>who will pay for the tickets plus the time spent in the other end of
>the world giving evidence?
If the UK citizen volunteers to give evidence, it is usually the side
that wants to use him/her as a witness who will pay travel &
accomodation expenses. The same if the witness must go to a court in
a distant town within the UK (though in that case the witness *can* be
forced to attend).
--
Cynic
|