From Saturday's Times newspaper (reproduced because the article's behind a paywall):

He’s happily retired in the suburbs - but next week he’ll be in a US jail By Martin Fletcher

Chris Tappin seems an improbable criminal. Silver-haired, bespectacled and slightly deaf, the retired businessman lives in an elegant house in Orpington, heads the Kent Golf Union, representing the county’s 95 clubs, plays bridge and dotes on his grandson.

At 9.30am next Friday, however, this apparent model of British middle-class respectability must report to Heathrow’s police station. He will be handed to US marshals who will escort him on a flight to Texas. On arrival in El Paso he will be strip-searched, manacled and taken into custody.

Mr Tappin, 65, will probably spend the next couple of years in a violent, gang-infested US prison for a crime he insists he did not commit and for which he will not have been tried in either Britain or America. He will be 5,000 miles from his wife, who has a debilitating illness. He will sell his home to pay his legal bills. He will have a criminal record for the rest of his life.

This is the result of an American “sting” operation, and a US-UK extradition treaty that rides roughshod over fundamental British legal principles.

Last night, MPs of all parties deplored the nature of Mr Tappin’s extradition and demanded reform of the treaty. Jo Johnson, Mr Tappin’s Tory MP, said that it acted like “a mindless and robotic catapult, flinging people across the Atlantic at the mere whim of US Homeland Security”.

Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Liberal Democrat leader, said that it did not allow UK authorities to weigh the quality or quantity of evidence, nor the credibility of witnesses. Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP, said: “To parcel people off to the US and elsewhere without affording them the ability in a UK court to contest what is said against them is not only unfair but a breach of their human rights.”

The Tappins are still struggling to comprehend the Kafkaesque enormity wrecking their comfortable suburban lives and cherished retirement.

“I can’t believe it’s happening,” Mr Tappin said, while his wife, Elaine, said: “I’m so shocked, and very frightened for him. You watch people on television going to prison, but you don’t think it’s going to happen to you. It’s horrible, horrible.”

Before retiring in 2008, Mr Tappin owned and ran a freight forwarding company, Brooklands International, and arranged the transport of anything from elephants to Tutankhamun’s treasures. In 2006, Robert Gibson, a British client, asked him to ship five industrial batteries at a cost of $25,000 from Texas to an automotive company in Amsterdam. Unknown to Gibson, the vendor, Mercury Global Enterprises (MGE) of El Paso, was a front company set up by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency to entrap businessmen engaged in the illegal export of controlled technologies.

Gibson was arrested that August when he went to inspect the batteries. He was accused of attempting to send them to Iran for use in Hawk air defence missiles. Gibson named Mr Tappin as a co-conspirator, said that they were to share the profits from the battery sales, and provided allegedly incriminating evidence. He was handed a two-year sentence. Mr Tappin insists he had no idea that the batteries were going anywhere but the Netherlands, or that they could be used in missiles. He said that he was merely the shipping agent and that the exporter, MGE, had to obtain the export licence. The following February, Mr Tappin was indicted on three counts by a grand jury in El Paso. He had no chance to defend himself. He had no idea the grand jury had even met until the police arrived at his home in May 2010 and arrested him because US authorities were seeking his extradition.

The Bush and Blair governments agreed on the controversial US-UK extradition treaty in 2003 to facilitate the extradition of terrorists, but it has since been deployed against all manner of people, from the industrial executive Ian Norris to the NatWest Three and the hacker Gary McKinnon. It does not require the US to make a prima facie case against its target in a British court — a grand jury indictment suffices. A judge cannot rule that the defendant should stand trial in Britain, even if that is where the alleged offence was committed. Provided that certain statutory criteria are fulfilled, courts have little choice but to grant the extradition request.

Mr Tappin’s extradition was allowed to proceed by a magistrates’ court, the High Court, the Home Secretary and the European Court of Human Rights. At no point could his lawyers fight the case on its merits or test the evidence. “It’s a denial of justice,” Karen Todner, his solicitor, said.

Mr Tappin is unlikely to get his day in court in Texas either. He will likely be deemed a “flight risk” and denied bail. He will then be offered a choice: plead guilty to a minor offence with a short sentence, or demand a trial on all three charges, knowing that he would face up to 35 years — the rest of his life — in a US prison, with no possibility of repatriation if he loses.

A trial might not start for years. It would bankrupt him as there is no legal aid or reimbursement of costs in the US — he has already spent $65,000 (£41,000) on his American lawyer. He said that six British and Dutch defence witnesses would refuse to testify lest they, too, were arrested.

David Bermingham, one of the NatWest Three, who now campaigns against the extradition treaty, said: “No rational man in his situation would do anything other than plea bargain, irrespective of the merits of the case.”

Even a short prison sentence could be hellish. Gary Mulgrew, another of the NatWest Three, served his time in Big Spring, Texas. In a new book, he describes an institution run by gangs where beatings, killings and sexual violence are common. Ms Todner doubts that her client would survive — “physically he’s not strong enough”.

Mr Tappin and his wife are consumed by a burning sense of injustice. He said: “I’m probably going to be imprisoned without trial, which is abhorrent to everything we believe in this country. I feel I’ve had no protection from the British Government. They’ve had no thought about me — only about not upsetting the Americans.” US-UK extradition treaty

· The treaty was agreed by the Bush and Blair Governments in 2003, when the War on Terror was at its height. The goal was to speed up the extradition of terrorist suspects

· It took effect in January 2004 in the UK, but not until April 2007 in the US because the Senate delayed ratification

· By June 2010 the UK had extradited 62 people to the US, including 28 British citizens or dual nationals. The US had extradited 33 to the UK, three of them US citizens or dual nationals

· The UK must demonstrate a “reasonable basis to believe” that the person to be extradited has committed an offence, but there is no reciprocal requirement

· There is no provision for a “forum test” allowing a judge to rule that a defendant should be tried in his own country because that was where the substance of the offence was committed · The alleged offence must be a crime in both countries and carry a minimum sentence of 12 months

· The UK may refuse to extradite someone if there is not an assurance that he will not be executed. The extradition must not be politically motivated nor breach a defendant’s human rights · In 2006 Parliament approved an amendment to the Extradition Act to allow a “forum test”. The Government has yet to ask Parliament to implement it

· Last October, a review of extradition laws by Sir Scott Baker, did not recommend changes to the US-UK treaty. The pressure group Liberty commented: “We don’t just disagree with this review but are completely baffled by it”

· The Home Office is reviewing the Baker report

Please sign the petition at http://www.freegary.britishintelligence.co.uk/tappin/ to stop this extradition going ahead.

TL;DR British pensioner faces extradition to US after being named as co-conspirator in plot to ship missile parts to Iran.

I am so ashamed to be British, I am so ashamed of the Government. Why do our politicians seem to think they need to ass kiss the Americans? The USA are the worlds bigest terror organization and our gov kisses their black arses daily!

This poor man hasn't even had a trial ffs! UK is such a joke these days, the laughing stock of the world.

The Case of Chris Tappin - How U.K. Views His Extradition to U.S.
5 comments, 2 called-out
+ Comment now
0

15


6

0

0


Chris Tappin - Photo The Week UK

If one were to speak on current topics of white-collar crime in the United States, few would mention the name of U.K. citizen Chris Tappin (65) who was extradited to the U.S. over the weekend to face charges of attempting to supply military goods (batteries for Hawk missiles) to Iran. A grand jury in El Paso, TX indicted Tappin in 2007 for scheming to export batteries to the U.K. without a license, aiding and abetting the illegal export of defense articles and of conspiring to conduct illegal financial transactions, a violation of the U.S. Arms Export Control Act. However, the transaction was not going to really take place because Tappin was dealing with undercover agents for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the fake company Mercury Global Enterprises in El Paso. Others involved in the case were Robert Gibson (U.K. citizen) who pled guilty in 2007 and was sentenced to 24 months in prison and Robert Caldwell (U.S. citizen) who was convicted at trial in 2007 and sentenced to 20 months in prison. According to reports, Tappin could face decades in prison unless he pleads guilty to the $25,000 worth of batteries he is alleged to have “wanted” to buy.

ICE seems to have its hands full fighting the illegal movement of U.S. technology out of the country. Whether it’s tractor parts to Iran or night vision goggle technology to China, there are plenty of cases involving export of technology that could land a person in jail. But the extradition of Mr. Tappin to the U.S. provides a view of how the United States’ justice system is viewed by those outside of our country.

The order to extradite Tappin, whose case is little known in the U.S., has caused an uproar among U.K. citizens who claim that the extradition treaty with the U.S. does not provide equal protection for British and American citizens. Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP, said of Tappin’s extradition, “To parcel people off to the U.S. and elsewhere without affording them the ability in a U.K. court to contest what is said against them is not only unfair but a breach of their human rights.” Tappin had fought his extradition for years but a recent decision to not allow his case to proceed to Britain’s Supreme Court failed and he was turned over the U.S. Marshals on Friday for his trip to the U.S.

Tappin, who has no prior criminal history, is represented in the U.S. by attorney, Dan Cogdell, who will try to arrange bail at an initial hearing that is to take place this week. If bail is denied, Tappin could spend many months in prison until the trial. This could pose a problem for Tappin, who has stated that he is retired and cannot afford to mount a vigorous defense. In addition, witnesses that Tappin says that he would call for his defense are U.K. citizens who fear being arrested if they were to come to the U.S. Is this how we are viewed?

Beyond the allegations of wrongdoing, U.K. papers are portraying the legal system in the U.S. as one that is rushing people to dangerous prisons. According to a piece in The Week, “Tappin, who says he is the victim of an FBI sting, is being held in the Otero County Detention Centre, a remote prison in the desert. The ACLU recently alleged abuses, humiliating treatment of detainees and inadequate access to medial care at the facility, which holds 1,000 inmates. At his own request, Tappin has been placed in isolation.” Sounds like he was put in a Russian prison in the 1950′s, and not the county jail in El Paso.

When Tappin was asked what conditions he expects if he goes to federal prison in the U.S., “It seems absolutely barbaric and awful. It’s supposed to be full of Mexican gangs.” That must be a scary proposition for a guy who was the former president of the Kent Golf Union back in the U.K.

I’ll be following this case and hope to get more perspectives on how the U.S. justice system is viewed by our allies as Tappin’s case moves forward. Making this case more interesting is that the Hawk missiles that Tappin is alleged to be supplying batteries for, were given to Iran by the United States as part of the Iran-Contra affair in the mid-1980s. Funny how that seemed like a good idea by a few in the U.S. government at the time…and is so reprehensible for a small fish like Tappin.
5 comments, 2 called-out
+ Comment now
0
15
6



Email
Print
Report Corrections
Request Reprint
More on Forbes Right Now
Click here to find out more!
Today's Top Stories

Oscar Braces for Big Night or Apathy +137,426 views
Watch Out! Ten Interview Questions Designed To Trick You +40,825 views
Top Executive Recruiters Agree There Are Only Three True Job Interview Questions +38,537 views

Features

Eike Batista's 10 Simple Rules For Becoming A Billionaire Eike Batista's 10 Simple Rules For Becoming A Billionaire
Media Skills: 5 Ways Tim Cook Tackled the Tough Question Media Skills: 5 Ways Tim Cook Tackled the Tough Question

Post Your Comment
Please log in or sign up to comment.
Enter Your Comment


Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.
Comments

Called-Out
Expand All Comments

Sharon G Sharon G 2 hours ago

This is such a sad story. This man, who is not a wealthy man, is not able to afford the kind of legal funding he would need to defend himself. He claims he was involved in a FBI sting and because of this stupid treaty between the US and Great Britain, instead of him going through his own country’s court system, he has to be shipped over to a foreign country and jailed until who knows when? This is a depolorable situation and I pray Americans show their support for this man and this terrible treaty.
Reply
Author
Walter Pavlo Walter Pavlo, Contributor 2 hours ago

As a U.S. citizen, my concern is that our justice system is portrayed as being unfair (at a minimum) and that this case could lead the U.K. and other allies from cooperating with us on larger, more important cases. Few here are following this case, but I think it is a big deal with larger implications. Thanks for your comment.
Reply
nsabournemouth nsabournemouth 1 hour ago

The issue that many have is no evidence has been given to the UK courts and it appears that the US can just demand anyone they like. If Knox is found to be guilty will she be handed over to Italy? I doubt it very much.

It is viewed as a one way street, the US demand and we hand over where as when the UK wants someone they have to jump through hoops and provide evidence. If he did do it then he should be put in front of a UK court as that is where the crime is alleged to have been committed or does the US have jurisdiction across borders?

Not only will this have implications on how countries do business with the US in this area, Cameron will also get the rough end of it too. People won’t forget his promise to sort this out when he was in opposition.

What is also unfair will be the threats . If he pleads guilty he’ll get a few years in jail, if he pleads not guilty he’ll face up to 35 years, the man is 65! The US causes most of the problems that it then attempts to sort out,Osama Bin Laden and all the other dictators it has put in power. They then use other people to mask their mistakes and this case is the same. As a British citizen I have no issues with the US people, it’s the US Gov and how they think they can just do things with no respect for boundaries or sovereign states. When this treaty came in to place the US asked the UK not to use it to get those who funded the IRA sent here to face trial. That in itself shows how the US views the treaty to get what it wants.
Reply
Author
Walter Pavlo Walter Pavlo, Contributor 1 hour ago

Thank you for your comments. Tappin’s case, while not big at the moment here in the States, has some issues with it as it relates to our allies. He seems like a small-time businessman who got caught up in a bad business deal. I will say that it is HIGHLY unlikely that Tappin will get anywhere close to 35 years if he is found guilty….that is a tactic we are used to hearing from the government when they arrest someone….if he goes to trial and is found guilty (likely since U.S. wins over 90% of its cases) it would be under 5 years…which is still a lot for a 65 year old man. I also feel that the U.S. would be hesitant to extradite one of its citizens for a similar crime…because it is such a small case compared to many other white-collar cases we have here in the U.S.
Reply
lawisanass lawisanass 16 minutes ago

The whole issue is that we in Britain cannot understand why a British citizen could be extradited from the UK for an alleged crime not even supposed to have taken place in the US without the chance to see the evidence and challenge it in a British court. Our law founded on Magna Carta and habeas corpus over many centuries used to prohibit such treatment of an individual and it is interesting to note that a US citizen could not be treated in the same way under this so called Treaty for extradition signed by the wretched Blair government. People are unhappy seeing this and wonder what happened to the concept of innocent until proved guilty when they see this man Tappin who can be a threat to nobody being shackled and dressed in an orange jump suit. How do you expect us to react? If the man is guilty he should pay for that, but only after a proper trial in front of his peers and we are all very uneasy when we see how this is unfolding. There are many ties that bind us and we respect and support the US in most things, but we feel strongly over this issue and the way your law seems to treat people is very worrying.
Reply