Civil Liberties and Human Rights.  
  
 
 
 
 
 

Chemical charges couple get wed before deportation fight



Kerry and Brian Howie attend their wedding despite facing extradition to the U.S. Picture: Ed Jones

 

By SANDRA DICK
A COUPLE fighting extradition to America amid claims that they sold banned chemicals over the internet today prepared for the next stage of their legal battle – by getting married.
Brian Howes and partner Kerry Ann Shanks were due to be accompanied by their four young daughters as bridesmaids at a service at Bo'ness Registrar's Office this morning.

The couple plan to spend their first day of marriage warning the four girls – aged from two to ten – that they could be just hours away from forced separation.

The couple are due to appear at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on Thursday to hear whether they will face deportation to America, where they could face a jail term of almost 100 years.

US authorities claim they knowingly sold chemicals through their Bo'ness-based internet supplies company for use in the manufacture of the synthetic drug methamphetamine, also known as crystal meth.

Mr Howes, 44, and Ms Shanks, 29, argue the chemicals – red phosphorus and iodine – have been sold through their firm around the UK, Europe and Canada without a problem. They deny 80 charges in the US indictment which allege they were involved in a $60-80 million drugs ring.

Despite never being formally charged in relation to any offence in the UK, both were remanded in custody for seven months following an earlier extradition hearing.

They were released on bail after Mr Howes had spent a month on hunger strike in Saughton prison protesting his innocence.

"We've been talking about getting married for years," said Mr Howes. "We thought that this might well be our last chance – it might be the last time we are both free together.

"We're having a small family wedding with the girls as our bridesmaids. Kerry has picked a nice dress. We've even hired a limo and booked a nice restaurant. It's not a lavish do though, we've had to borrow money to pay for it."

The shoestring wedding comes despite allegations that the pair made hundreds of thousands selling chemicals to illegal US drug laboratories.

The claims emerged after a raid on the couple's home and internet business
last year when American drug enforcement officers joined Scottish police in a detailed search of their property. Later, US officials claimed the two chemicals – which are legal in Scotland but tightly controlled in America – had been knowingly sold for drug manufacture. A warrant for their arrest and extradition was issued by a court in Phoenix, Arizona.

The couple, who sold more than 40 different chemicals through their firm, insist they did not know what the substances might be used for. "How could we know what someone was using it for?" said Mr Howes. "We took legal advice and were told it was up to the purchaser to make sure they were acting legally."

He added: "We have been banged up in jail with hardened criminals but we haven't done anything wrong. We know we might be back in jail on Thursday, so we're determined to make sure our wedding day is the best it can be."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
     

Liberty Policy Director Gareth Crossman said:

"The Extradition Act 2003 undermines longstanding safeguards against unfair removal and unfortunately appears to be more about politics than law.”

Liberty Press Office on 0207 378 3656 or 0797 3 831 128

NOTES TO EDITORS

In October 2006, Liberty, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the Bar Human Rights Council, Justice, Gareth Peirce and others unsuccessfully sought Parliamentary support for a law to provide greater protection for British citizens who may be extradited to face criminal charges abroad.

Liberty intervened in the case Government of the United States of America v Bermingham, Mulgrew and Darby, to argue that removal to the United States would engage Article 8 of the Human Rights Act which protects the right to respect for a private and family life. Liberty argued that the interference with family life caused by removal to the United States must be disproportionate if shown to be unnecessary through the ability to dispose of the case to the United Kingdom. The three were sent to the USA in July 2006.

Home Office statistics show that the US government has made 47 extradition requests since January 2004. The UK government has made 12 such requests of the US.

Liberty Briefing- The Extradition Treaty 2003:

The UK's extradition laws have been radically overhauled in recent years. The Extradition Act 2003 created a system of fast track processing of extradition applications. This means that British citizens can be removed from the UK to many jurisdictions without the need for a court to hear that there is any evidence against them. The United States is one country where the fast track process has been introduced. However, Liberty does not think that debate over extradition should focus on the US and the non reciprocal nature of our extradition procedures as this might allow principled debate to be construed as anti Americanism. In any case, summary extradition should not take place from any state.

Liberty does not believe anyone should be removed from the United Kingdom without a British Court being satisfied that there is evidence. When Liberty argued this during the passage of the Extradition Bill the government responded that the removal of safeguard would be balanced by the introduction of a protection that no-one would be removed from the UK if doing so would breach their human rights.

When extradition proceeding were taken against the Natwest 3, Liberty intervened in the High Court. We argued that this human rights protection meant that if a case could be tried in the United Kingdom, it would breach rights to a family life if someone were taken overseas. No-one should face the prospects of being held in an overseas prison awaiting trial, away from family and friends, if they can face trial in the UK. The growing international and multi-jurisdictional nature of the criminal law means that cases of this type will become increasing common.

Liberty also argued that the positive duties imposed by the Human Rights Act 1998 should require the prosecuting authorities to take steps to see if prosecution were possible. We do not believe that nearly enough has been done to bring proceedings against the Natwest 3. Writing in the Financial Times on 10 July 2006 Baroness Scotland said 'It is for the prosecuting authorities to consider whether a case should be heard in the UK.' Liberty would argue that when a failure to do so will result in a person instead facing trial on the other side of the world, the state should do more than 'consider' but take positive steps to see if prosecution is possible. Liberty would also remind Parliamentarians that when considering criminal charges, the UK prosecuting authorities need to consider not only the evidence, but also the public interest. There appears to be no public interest test in relation to extradition.

Unfortunately the case is not proceeding to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords which means that there will not be an opportunity to put forward these arguments.

Parliament urgently needs to review the grounds for permitting extradition and the protections against unfair extradition. In particular there is a need to address

The lack of evidence needed to permit extradition
The lack of an obligation in domestic law requiring a case to be heard in the UK if possible.

 

   
 
 

The US has been using the UK 2003 extradition act to extradite people who have broken no UK laws knowing that they need no evidence of any kind. They also know that once you arrive in the US that even if you have done nothing Illegal that the threat of life behind bars and being remanded in custody for a long period of time while waiting trial is enough to get the extradited person to take a plea. In order to be extradited you must have committed a crime in the UK which has the corresponding crime in the US. In our case we have no criminal records and have been cleared of all wrong doing by the English and Scottish police.

We have spent 214 days on remand away from our four young girls and only a thirty day hunger strike managed to get us bail. Imagine yourself and your partner without notice put in prison without charge without questioning for 7 months not even given the same rights as a common criminal. If there is anybody from the media out there that would like to expand on this horrific story please contact me through this email address: brian@howes.uk.net and I will respond.