Brexit (31 October 2019): new US-UK extradition treaty, and new US-UK intergovernment agreement on extraterritoriality

Indigo made this Freedom of Information request to Attorney General's Office

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

Attorney General's Office did not have the information requested.

Dear Attorney General's Office

HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998, Article 6

I should be grateful to receive any information about the UK Government's timetable for and progress on preparing and putting before Parliament - and FINALISING before 31 October 2019 -

(a) a new US-UK extradition treaty (as, post-Brexit, the existing US-EU Extradition Treaty will no longer apply) and

(b) a new US-UK inter-government agreement on extraterritoriality (in the context of the US CLOUD Act 2018).

I am aware that there are only around 60 business days left for Parliament between now and 31 October 2019. For my part, I do not think that it would be right or just - or in any way defensible - for the UK Government to allow a situation to come about in which Britain left the EU without putting place these two new pieces of legislation to protect the rights in law of its citizens.

Yours faithfully
Rachel Mawhood

AGO Correspondence, Attorney General's Office

Thank you for contacting the Attorney General’s Office (AGO).


Please note the Attorney General provides legal advice to the government
and is unable to give legal advice, assistance or support to individuals.
The Attorney General does not have investigatory powers.


We strive to answer all correspondence that falls within the remit of the
AGO within 20 days. However, we are unable to reply to matters that do not
fall within the responsibility of the department.


If your correspondence is in relation to:


·       Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) matters or complaints – please
contact the CPS: [1] or refer to the CPS complaints
procedure: [2]

·       Courts or judges – please contact the Ministry of Justice:

·       Police – please contact the Home Office:


You may wish to redirect your correspondence to another department that
has responsibility for the issue you have raised.


If your email is regarding the case of David de Freitas, please note that
the Attorney General is giving consideration to the requests made by Mr De
Freitas, and will make a decision in due course.

More information about the role of the AGO can be found at our website:



Visible links

AGO Correspondence, Attorney General's Office

Dear Rachel Mawhood,

Thank you for your FOI request to the Attorney General’s Office (AGO).

The AGO will respond to your request within the deadline requirement of the FOIA legislation.

Yours sincerely,

FOI Officer

FOI Officer
E: [cyfeiriad ebost]
T: 020 7271 2492
5-8 The Sanctuary, London, SW1P 3JS

@attorneygeneral |

Making law and politics work together at the heart of the UK constitution

show quoted sections

AGO Correspondence, Attorney General's Office

1 Attachment

Dear Rachel Mawhood,

Please see the attached AGO response to the FOI request you made on 12 April 2019.

Yours Sincerely,

FOI Officer
E: [Attorney General's Office request email]
T: 020 7271 2492
5-8 The Sanctuary, London, SW1P 3JS

@attorneygeneral |

Making law and politics work together at the heart of the UK constitution

show quoted sections

FOI Officer
Office of the Attorney General

FOI request FOI 99/19

Thank you for your reply.

My understanding is that since the US CLOUD Act 2018 came into force on 23 March 2018, and absent a US-UK intergovernment agreement on extraterritoriality, compliance with EU/UK GDPR is impossible where the data is held on the servers of American technology companies. I understand, also, that the US CLOUD Act 2018 has the effect of nullifying the protections of the EU-US Privacy Shield and, as a result, the Dutch government has decided that Google (for instance) is not GDPR-compliant; and the French government is revisiting all the contractual arrangements that its government institutions have with US technology companies.

As your response seems to indicate that the British Government has nothing in hand and no plans to mitigate the immediate and intolerable impact, of the US CLOUD Act 2018, on extraterritoriality and on the privacy/protection of British citizens' data held on the servers of American technology companies, I am going to share this your response with the Information Commissioner's Office and with anyone who processes legally privileged information and/or has GDPR responsibilities as a data controller for EU/UK citizens' data, and with individuals who may wish to change their ISP or energy provider or bank in order to prevent their personal information from being shared without their express consent, as is their right in law.

As it is unlawful to withhold from British data subjects the fact that their personal data may have been already released in real time, wholesale, not anonymised at all, in breach of EU/UK GDPR, and has been shared with others without the data subjects' express consent, I trust that this is OK with you.

If the Attorney General or Government has second thoughts about not doing anything to protect us from the effects of the US CLOUD Act, I should be grateful if you would let me know.

Rachel Mawhood