After six years house arrest and battle my extradition to US, I had a two days rolled up hearing in the High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court on 30th and 31st October 2012. The Royal Courts of Justice, commonly called the Law Courts, houses the Court of Appeal and the High Court of Justice of England and Wales and are open to the public although there may be some restrictions depending upon the nature of the cases being heard. The building is a large grey stone edifice in the Victorian Gothic style and was designed by George Edmund Street, a solicitor turned architect. It was built in the 1870s. The Royal Courts of Justice were opened by Queen Victoria in December 1882.
There were three sets of proceedings before the Court[1], in this hearing arising from an extradition request made by the Government of the United States of America for my surrender in the UK and extradition to that country, and they are:
a. A challenge by way of judicial review to the decision of the Secretary of State for Home Department announced on 7 November 2011 not to extradite me;
b. An application pursuant to CPR 52.17 to-reopen my appeal determined on 10 April 2008;
c. An application for judicial review of a decision of a District Judge of 26 March 2012 not to discharge me under section 118(7) of the Extradition Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”).
Two bundles of documents in 630 pages have been submitted to the High Court. The first replaces the original single bundle submitted with the application of 29 November 2011. The second contains the documents relating to the second judicial review, the application to re-open the statutory appeal, both of April 2012 and documents created since then.
At the heart of all three applications before the court on 30th and 31st October 2012 is the delay between 11 August 2008 and 7 November 2011. This is the period taken by the Secretary of State (i) to make her decision of 5th January 2009 not to revoke her extradition order of 14th June 2007 in the light of fresh evidence of the NT’s ill-health and (ii) to announce it. The attempt to explain this delay, set out in a witness statement of Mr Tyson Hepple[2] dated 6th September 2012 giving evidence on behalf of the Secretary of State for Home Department (SSHD), is utterly inadequate and unspecific. It refers vaguely to meetings or communications between the UK and US Governments, but fails to record their contents or to supply notes or memoranda.
The statement does not even attempt to set out the reasons why the US Government failed to indicate for 2 years and 8 months whether or not, after statutory proceedings had been exhausted, it continued to seek the my extradition in the face of the UK Government’s hesitation. The US Government, also, has not attempted to explain this delay. My lawyers wished to cross-examine Mr. Hepple to ask him to explain further, but Secretary of State refused to do it.
In the first day Mr. Alun Jones QC gave his explanation to the court on my behalf and in the second day Mr. Hugo Keith QC talked behalf of Secretary of State for Home Department. There was another Barrister behalf of USA as interested party which was mostly silent in two days hearing. There were also other people from public and US Embassy in London which actively follow this case. Mr. Jones submitted that the court should quash the decision of the Secretary of State of 7 November 2011; permit the re-opening of the appeal on the ground of new and compelling factors and allow it; alternatively, allow the section 118 judicial review, directing the Westminster Magistrates’ Court to discharge me under section 118(7) of the Act.
Mr. Keith explained that Secretary of State has this right to delay especially for national security and referred to Mr. Hepple’s witness statement about concerns of British Foreign Office and Commonwealth about British Diplomat in Tehran, if my extradition to the US has taken place. This part of statement confirmed Wikileaks documents which have been filed in the bundle for the court. This clearly shows political involvement in extradition proceeding and concerns about British Diplomat rather than justice.
Another part of Mr. Hepple statement has pointed out that US authorities didn’t answer British communication between January 2009 and September 2011 whether that want to pursue my extradition or not? This period of time shows that new US administration wants to have new approach toward Iran and also release 3 American detainees in Iran from prison. When they freed by help of other countries in early September 2011, then US answered British corresponding and insisted my extradition!
[1] CO/11565/2011: The Queen on the application of Nosratollah Tajik as Claimant against the Secretary of State for the Home Department as Defendant, the Government of the United States of America as interested party and CO/4026/2112: The Queen on the application of Nosratollah Tajik as Claimant against Westminster Magistrates’ Court as Defendant, The Secretary of State for the Home Department as interested party, the Government of the United States of America as interested party and CO/5417/2007: Nosratollah Tajik as claimant against the Government of the United States of America as respondent, the Secretary of State for the Home Department as interested party.
[2] Director of Civil Liberties and Public Protection at the Immigration and International Group of the Home Office.
