Christopher Tappin Extradition: Retired Businessman Arrives At Heathrow With Tearful Wife

PA/The Huffington Post UK  |  By   |  Posted: 24/02/12 11:11 GMT  |  Updated: 24/02/12 14:04 GMT

Christopher Tappin Extradition
Christopher Tappin is accused of conspiring to sell components for Iranian missiles

Retired businessman Christopher Tappin described his treatment as a "disgrace" and claimed he had "no rights" as he arrived at Heathrow police station to be handed over to US marshals and taken to America to face arms dealing charges.

Tappin, who fought a two-year battle against extradition, faces up to 35 years in jail if convicted of conspiring to sell components for Iranian missiles.

Tappin, who was accompanied to Heathrow by his tearful wife Elaine, said earlier that he was "philosophical" about his chances of ever returning home.

As he arrived at the airport, Tappin, a former president of the Kent Golf Union, said he was full of trepidation and was "not sure what's going to happen".

Tappin, who has been caring for his wife, who has chronic Churg-Strauss Syndrome, said he was "not very confident at all" about his case.

But he said he was keen to prove his innocence. Asked if he knew where he was going, he said: "No idea, no destination has been given to me yet.

At the police station on Friday morning he said: "I look to Cameron to look after my rights and he has failed to do so.

"I have no rights. Abu Qatada is walking the streets of London today and we cannot extradite him. He has more rights than I have.

"If I was a terrorist I would not be going to America. I think it's a shame, a disgrace.

"The Conservative government, while in opposition, promised to reform the law and they failed to do so and they've let me down, they've let you down, they've let the whole country down."


Tappin is the latest Briton to fight and lose an extradition battle with the US and his case increases pressure on the Government to review the arrangements.

David Cameron said on Wednesday that the government would carry out a "proper, sober and thoughtful" review.

But the prime minister added that it was important to remember that extradition treaties "show respect to each other's judicial processes and make sure that people who are accused of crimes are tried for those crimes".

"Britain can benefit from that as well," he said.

An independent review of the UK's extradition arrangements by retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Scott Baker last year found that the current treaty between the US and the UK was both balanced and fair.

But critics claim it is one-sided, with MPs, peers and campaigners all calling for reform. Former Tory leadership hopeful David Davis has said the case shows why "it is long past time that the Government delivered on its promises" to change extradition law.

Jago Russell, chief executive of Fair Trials International, said: "After years of talk about extradition reform, and countless cases of injustice, still nothing has been done.

"It is high time the Government brings forward concrete proposals to build much-needed safeguards into our laws."

Tappin denies attempting to sell batteries for surface-to-air missiles which were to be shipped from the US to Tehran via the Netherlands.

He has said that, for justice to be done, he should be tried by a jury of his peers in the UK, not a jury 3,000 miles away which does not share a common cultural background.

But magistrates and the High Court backed his extradition, and he exhausted his appeal options earlier this month when a last-ditch plea to the European Court of Human Rights was rejected.

Tappin, from Orpington, Kent, has claimed he is the victim of entrapment in a "sting" organised by US government agents.

Isabella Sankey, director of policy for civil rights group Liberty, said: "No British court has ever been allowed to examine any evidence against Christopher Tappin or consider whether he should be tried here.

"Even if a US jury eventually finds him not guilty, he'll still spend years in a Texan jail awaiting trial - thousands of miles from his home and sick wife.

"No-one is immune from such unfair treatment and it's high time the government put some common sense and compassion back into our extradition laws."

Tappin's lawyer Karen Todner said: "Mr Tappin has been taken now by British extradition officers to the aeroplane, where he is going to be handed over to US marshals.

"He will be arriving in El Paso this afternoon. He will be appearing in court on Monday morning, so he will be in custody over the weekend."

She said it was likely the prosecution would apply for an adjournment so the earliest he could be granted bail would probably be Thursday or Friday.

She urged Home Secretary Theresa May to step in to help make sure Mr Tappin gets bail.

She added: "Jo Johnson, Mr Tappin's MP, personally spoke to Theresa May on Wednesday and asked her to intervene with the US authorities so they do not object to his bail on Monday.

"I don't know if that has happened yet, she said she would look into it. If it has not happened, I would urge her to do that over the course of the weekend to ensure that Mr Tappin does receive bail next week.

"We have appointed American lawyers for him and they are helping him and will be making his bail application for him next week."

Asked about Mr Tappin's comparison of his case with that of Abu Qatada, Prime Minister David Cameron's official spokesman said: "They are completely different cases."

Launch Slideshow
 HIDE THUMBNAILS
SHARE
BACK TO ARTICLE
1 of 10
PLAY ALL
VOTE ON THIS SLIDE

ADVERTISEMENT
FOLLOW UK

Retired businessman Christopher Tappin described his treatment as a "disgrace" and claimed he had "no rights" as he arrived at Heathrow police station to be handed over to US marshals and taken to Ame...
Retired businessman Christopher Tappin described his treatment as a "disgrace" and claimed he had "no rights" as he arrived at Heathrow police station to be handed over to US marshals and taken to Ame...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 106
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
daulman
War is Peace, Diversity is Strength
04:19 PM on 02/28/2012
Another sting by the DHS, they have plenty of time on their hands and unlimited funds to set these things set up. Sell some batteries, your a terrorist. Funny, the UK won't extradite a real muslim terrorist because of human rights violations but they hand over one of their own people instead. Real Orwellian stuff.
12:26 PM on 02/26/2012
The US has a pretty good legal system based on the English one and has a constitution, he is not being sent to a country that routinely tortures people in its legal system. The ordinariness of the image presented by his supporters is at odds with the alleged crime but I hope he did not want to be tried here was because of the dismal record of our court system in sending financial criminals to jail. I worry this is like the previous case of the UK business men who cut a quick buck during the financial crisis and then campaigned against being sent to the US when they were found out, presenting themselves as innocent, only to plead guilty when they got there.
Richard Britton
British Socialist Global Realist
09:09 PM on 02/25/2012
feel very sorry for these people

why was he taken on a Friday when all the institutions will be closed for the weekend?

why take him and make him wait up to two years for trial, surely he could have been on a "report to the police station once a week" deal and stayed at home. As a 65 year old two years on remand in a US prison could kill him

what are we doing to our citizens?
03:12 PM on 02/25/2012
wow. his wife looks really devastated. she certainly is going to miss him - very much. how will her grieving heart ever recover?
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
08:53 AM on 02/26/2012
She may be able to console herself with a shopping spree using the alleged proceeds.
01:42 PM on 02/25/2012
this is appalling . . . the extradiction treaty needs to be changed . . . . it sounds as though America has already convicted him . . . . this is madness
01:00 PM on 02/25/2012
Where you going, make sure you take the ky
12:53 PM on 02/25/2012
Probablt upset the big boys because selling arms is their job.
12:41 PM on 02/25/2012
I seem to remember this easy extradition of British citizens to the USA started during those halcyon days of former prime minister Tony Blair who could not do enough for George Bush. Everything from getting Britain into another Vietnam into shovelling out UK citizens out providing they were not Muslim terrorists of course. The so-called judicial review or whatever undertaken last year must be taken with a large dose of sodium chloride.

I do not know what Bush, the NSA, the FBI or the CIA had on Blair and/or his New Labour Party but it must have been something big, really big.

Of course I have heard these rumours about Hamilton, 1995, Chief Constables, gun licenses and paedophine rings etc but also about what ostensibly appear to be harmless government documents being placed in secret for 100 years. Whatever, it must be big.
This comment has been removed.
11:08 AM on 02/25/2012
Whilst I'm not keen at all on this extradition agreement with the US, at the same time I've little sympathy for a weapons trader. He no doubt lived a very swanky lifestyle with his wife - unlike the majority of the people who would be turned into human doner kebabs by the missiles his company contributed to building.Just so there's no misunderstanding, I don't give a rat's ars* whether it's Iran firing the missile or the U.S- either way, I think war stinks.
11:05 AM on 02/25/2012
one rule for the yanks andother for the rest of humanity.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fco1922
08:32 AM on 02/25/2012
The reality is simple. His lawyers negotiate a plea bargain. He admits his guilt at the earliest opportunity. The Feds will give him 1-2 years to prove that justice has been done. He'll go to a low security prison. Within 18 months he'll be back in the UK. In the process, the US government will have spent millions but that is how the game works. 95% conviction rate, 98% based on plea bargains. He doesn't need a lawyer; he needs a skilled negotiator.
10:47 AM on 02/25/2012
95% conviction ratewith 98% by plea bargain is a very high proportion. Seems to go against the idea of the presumption of innocence. However, provided the accused are guilty as charged, then its a remarkably efficient and just system.

However, if genuinely innocent people are pleading guilty because they feel coerced by the risk of much larger penalties imposed at sentencing by pleading innocent and being found guilty, then the system is unjust.

It is unjust because innocents are intimidated to plead guilty and conviction is achieved without burden of proof because the system has been rigged to ensure the burden of proof is rarely required, based on a presumption of guilt by the accusing authorities and threat of maximum penalty.

One hopes the U.S. authorities are doing a very good job and no innocents are being wrongly punished due to overzealous patriotism.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
11:20 AM on 02/25/2012
He does. However, a light deal may not be on the agenda.

He has fought, publicly, and played the innocent. Those with whom he will be negotiating have been given much extra work to do by him already. And there's the issue of arms dealers, who made no effort to contact the security services ahead of time, getting a light deal. He's probably facing 5-10, or then 35 if he doesn't start playing the game well.
12:16 PM on 02/25/2012
Yes, if guilty the accused should confess and show contrition. What to do if innocent though?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DaveJohnWard
07:42 AM on 02/25/2012
The merits, or otherwise, of the individual cases are not the major concern here (IMHO). The biggest cause for concern is the difference in the level of evidence that must be provided to support a request for extradition. In essence, if a UK Court presented a US court with the same evidence that would lead to a UK citizen being extradited, the US court would not accept it as sufficient to justify the extradition of a US citizen.
That can't be equitable, and must be addressed.
08:37 AM on 02/25/2012
Well put. There must be a burden of proof that there is a case to answer under the correct jurisdiction.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
04:10 PM on 02/25/2012
The key question is: are the conditions for extradition from the UK to the US fair and reasonable? Whether a guy in the same circumstances would be extradited from the US to the UK isn't really the point.

From the extradition papers, he appears to have been very keen for one being entrapped. For someone who's supposedly been certain that no end-user declarations are required, he appears to have been really rather imaginative in developing suitable stories.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rich Cash
Enlisted in 1971 - Retired in 1996
07:00 AM on 02/25/2012
Maybe the reason Brits are being are being extradited to the U.S. for prosecution is because the British Government doesn't have the balls to prosecute these people themselves. Tappin is accused of selling missile parts and technology to Iran, parts and technology that could be used to attack, damage, and sink British ships and military installations as well as those of the U.S. The Briish government is simply willing to put the onus for prosecution on the U.S. and avoid the controversy of holding a trial in Britain.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fco1922
08:33 AM on 02/25/2012
There is only one reason this is happening. The US wants to show Britain who is boss. Behind closed doors, the US is making all sorts of threats. No more intelligence. No defense cooperation. You name it. Ask any American who knows how the US Government thinks and works. This is all about keeping our allies in line.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rich Cash
Enlisted in 1971 - Retired in 1996
08:46 AM on 02/25/2012
Oh horse chit! What proof do you have that the U.S. is making any threats, behind closed doors or not? Ask any American who knows how the U.S. Government thinks and works? How many government employees who have access to that information do you know? You've made the accusation, so you need to be specific.
11:16 AM on 02/25/2012
Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe no British laws have been broken, which is maybe why the British government cannot prosecute anyone in British courts.

Strictly the Accused is accused of importing electrical batteries to the U.K. and guilt by association with the U.S. exporter is being inferred for this unlicensed ITAR controlled export form the U.S. territory. The same items would likely be subject to the U.K.s own defence export controls if exported outside of the UK. This did not happen, so no offence occurred under UK jurisdiction.

The Hawk missile system is a short range defensive weapon to protect against air attack. Much Iranian weaponry could be used to attack Britain. This weaponry can only be used to defend from attack by British airbourne forces.British ships and military installations are not under direct threat, to say otherwise is misleading.

Iran once mass produced this weapon system under U.S. licence and developed derivatives of these U.S. weapons which are still in production and have replaced the original U.S. system so export control of these electrical batteries or not in actual defence terms appears academic, even though it is proper to continue such control.
01:08 AM on 02/25/2012
Reading the affidavit exerts in the Appeal Court judgement, no evidence was provided nor required by the Court. A foreign government's affidavit is not true by mere virtue of its submission; it should be properly tested under burden of proof. It was not. Rather the Appeal Court found a reason based on the technicality of a potential infringement of a UK law not on the charge that the US shall prosecute. This is potentially an unsafe judgement.

The alleged foreign 'crime' appears to have been committed by the defendant when wholly within the UK jurisdiction where no British law has been breached & no charge of illegal arms exporting is answerable in the UK. The Appeal Court admits no such charge could be brought before it & under U.K. law, there is no case to answer with regards to the case the US prosecution intends.

The UK executive appears to wish to be seen to be delivering on its bilateral extradition commitments & there exists the danger that the Home Office & Appeal Court decision may be in part politically motivated rather than in the interests of justice for this individual.The charge itself smears the defendant's name & damages the presumption of innocent until proven guilty.

This extradition treaty appears to displace Parliamentary Sovereignty in favour of foreign -in this instance U.S. Congressional- law, within British jurisdiction. This is a most grave matter for the British people & British Parliament.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
05:45 AM on 02/25/2012
If there is no suitable UK law against arms dealing, then it is good that its former colonies have been able to correct that error. The Parliamentary Sovereigns should get to work on correcting that straightaway.
08:32 AM on 02/25/2012
The UK has its own suitable laws without error. The status of the U.S. as former colony has no bearing on the matter. Parliamentary Sovereignty is a principle in law; there are no such persons as 'Parliamentary Sovereigns' to do anything. What the U.K. Parliament should do is matter for its elected representatives to decide, no-one else.

The issue is that foreign laws apply to acts within the foreign jurisdiction, but within the U.K. jurisdiction Parliamentary Sovereignty of British Law must be upheld by British Law according to British Law.

Here it appears foreign law has been allowed to supplant the rule of British Law within British jurisdiction. Constitutionally, the U.K. government and judiciary may be acting against Parliamentary Sovereignty partly out of political expediency, a course of action that may be unlawful for those state organs. They appear to have abrogated lawful U.K. jurisdiction to unlawful U.S. Congress.

Clearly if the accused has been within U.S. jurisdiction at the time of the alleged offence and later absconded to the U.K. then it is right and proper for the U.S. authorities to seek extradition of this individual from the U.K. authorities. However, if in the U.K. then British laws must apply and the U.S. should seek prosecution under U.K. laws and Parliamentary Sovereignty requires it.

Put simply, Congressional Law cannot be allowed jurisdiction over U.K. territories.