Dear Crown Prosecution Service,

I have been advised that individuals are only extradited to the US for offences that are criminal in both the UK and the US ('dual criminality').

As Mr O'Dwyer (a website owner) is now facing extradition for actions undertaken while on UK soil - the question has to be asked why the CPS have decided not to prosecute him here in the UK.

This is a matter of huge public interest - if the CPS are not prepared to prosecute a UK citizen for actions performed in the UK then I can think of no reason that they should be extradited to be subject to any foreign judicial system either.

So can you provide me with your reasoning for not prosecuting him here in the UK?

Yours faithfully,

Paul Perrin

Freedom of Information Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

Dear Mr Perrin,

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 REQUEST

I acknowledge receipt of your request for information.

Your request was received on 7th February 2012 and I am dealing with it under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Please note there is a twenty working day limit (from receipt of request) in which we are required to respond to requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

The deadline for your request is 6th March 2012 however we will endeavour to respond sooner.

In some circumstances a fee may be payable and if that is the case, I will let you know the likely charges before proceeding.

Yours sincerely,

H Hardaker

Information Management Unit
Tel: 020 3357 0899
Fax: 020 3357 0229
E-mail: [CPS request email]

show quoted sections

Freedom of Information Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Perrin,

Please find attached CPS' response to your Freedom of Information request.

Yours sincerely,

H Hardaker
Information Management Unit

show quoted sections

Harley Faggetter left an annotation ()

(To Mr Perrin)
I believe they are refusing this on the grounds that the details of his case can't be released because they were used in criminal proceedings, but I doubt that would extend to the judgement itself. It may be worth lodging a complaint regarding the response, unless they make the grounds of refusal clearer.

julia o'dwyer left an annotation ()

Ridiculous response, there are no Criminal proceedings in the UK. The case is not being prosecuted in the UK because quite simply the alleged conduct is not even a crime in the UK!

Dear Freedom of Information Unit,

You refused my request on the basis that it was information relating to a potential prosecution that you are empowered to take out.

Please set out exactly what offence it is that you believe you are empowered to make in this case, that you clearly cannot be progresing.

Also you say this is 'personal information', as your judgement will be based on facts, facts that must be independent of any characters or individuals involved in the case, facts and logic that are self standing and abosolute in their own right. Facts and logic that wojld equally apply to any such case. Accordingly, a fully anonymised copy of the information requested will surfice for my purposes.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Perrin

Dear Freedom of Information Unit,

You refused my request on the basis that it was information relating to a potential prosecution that you are empowered to take out.

Please set out exactly what offence it is that you believe you are empowered to make in this case, that you clearly cannot be progresing.

Also you say this is 'personal information', as your judgement will be based on facts, facts that must be independent of any characters or individuals involved in the case, facts and logic that are self standing and abosolute in their own right. Facts and logic that wojld equally apply to any such case. Accordingly, a fully anonymised copy of the information requested will surfice for my purposes.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Perrin

Paul Perrin left an annotation ()

Harvey, Julia, I have followed up with both of your suggestions.

I just wish I had more time to be involved in such travesties of UK justice. A governments first and primary duty is the protection of its own citizens. I hope a light can be shone on the twisted thinking of our institutions that makes them think they can offer up one of our own as some kind of human sacrifice.

Freedom of Information Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

Dear Mr Perrin

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 REQUEST – INTERNAL REVIEW

 

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your email dated 11 August.  Your
email will be referred for an internal review and will be assigned to a
Crown Prosecution Service official who was not involved with the original
decision in relation to your FOI request (our ref: 3126).

 

We normally expect to complete internal reviews within 20 working days,
although more complex cases may take longer.  We will however to endeavour
to respond to you as quickly as practicable.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Mr P Willman

Information Management Unit

Tel:  020 3357 0899

Fax: 020 3357 0229

E-mail:  [CPS request email]

 

*********************************************************************
This e-mail is private and is intended only for the addressee and any copy recipients.
If you are not an intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message and any attachments without retaining a copy.

Activity and use of CPS Connect systems, the Government Secure Intranet, and the
Criminal Justice Extranet is monitored to secure their effective operation and for other
lawful business purposes. Communications using these systems will also be monitored
and may be recorded to secure effective operation and for other lawful business purposes.
*********************************************************************

julia o'dwyer left an annotation ()

As we now know from the Vickerman case where the CPS also refused to prosecute because linking is not copyright infringement under UK law, even more so if no servers in the UK. I have the CPS letter stating as much. The same reason applies in Richard O'Dwyers case. If it wasn't in the public interest to prosecute in the UK because its not a crime and remember if theres no crime there is no conspiracy, why is it ok to send to US prosecute. Madness misuse of extradition for a non serious matter.

Dear Freedom of Information Unit,

This internal review appears to be over due,
can younconfirm that its completion is imminent?

Yours sincerely,

Paul Perrin

Freedom of Information Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

Dear Mr Perrin

 

I apologise for the fact that we have missed the 20 working day deadline
for your internal review response.  There has been a significant increase
in the number of requests we receive under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 and unfortunately we have not yet been able to process your request
for an internal review.

 

We will endeavour to respond within a further 20 working days from the
initial deadline, i.e. by 8 October.

 

Regards

 

Mr P Willman

Information Management Unit

 

 

show quoted sections

Freedom of Information Unit, Crown Prosecution Service

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Perrin

 

Please see attached.

 

Regards

 

Mr P Willman

Information Management Unit

 

*********************************************************************
This e-mail is private and is intended only for the addressee and any copy recipients.
If you are not an intended recipient, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail
and delete this message and any attachments without retaining a copy.

Activity and use of CPS Connect systems, the Government Secure Intranet, and the
Criminal Justice Extranet is monitored to secure their effective operation and for other
lawful business purposes. Communications using these systems will also be monitored
and may be recorded to secure effective operation and for other lawful business purposes.
*********************************************************************

Paul Perrin left an annotation ()

Almost a year to get a one line response 'we never considered a UK proscution'.

If they didn't consider it how could they be sure it was a UK crime?

Why take a year? Hiding til the dust has settled?

James Albright left an annotation ()

In my opinion its not black and white to say there is no offence under UK law - under section 107 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 there is an offence for 'communicating' the work to the public and arguably that is what O'Dwyer was doing.

Also there is nothing to say the Police have to investigate or make a decision to prosecute on every crime. It is entirely possible the UK Police never even investigated the suspect and the only reason it became an issue is because people/businesses in the USA enforce their IP rights more forcefully.

There is an argument to be made that if the USA bring something to the UKs attention then we should investigate but then you might go down the route that the USA funds the Police/CPS to investigate and prosecute - which would not be ideal.

Paul Perrin left an annotation ()

The UK authorities never *established* whether an offence under UK law was committed, so could *not* know whether the extradition request was valid or not.

Its not case specific, its due process. I think the CPS know this which is why they delayed replying to a simple request for almost a year.

Not the place to discuss details of the case - just comment on FoI aspects (delay to hide incompetence).

James Albright left an annotation ()

Where there is ambiguity over whether an offence exists or not it is for a public body to bring proceedings and the Court to decide. In this case the court did consider the matter and they were of the view that an offence probably did exist in the UK - see this link and associated transcript - http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgme...

It would only be necessary for the CPS to decide whether they thought the offence existed if they were taking their own case in the UK - which did not happen in this instance.

As mentioned it is perfectly possible that the CPS had never even heard of O'Dwyer until the extradition request was made because the UK Police may never have bought a case against him.

I don't think it was unreasonable of them no to answer your question when the case was live - it looks to me that they refused to answer your question because at the time they could still have taken the case on in the UK if they were asked to. I agree that the delay was too long for the response.

I am not sure the CPS is the right body to air your frustrations on - its the Courts that deal with extradition requests and they of course have to follow the law created by Parliament and politicians.

julia o'dwyer left an annotation ()

In order for extradition to proceed the "conduct" must be an offence in both countries with all due respect Purdy is a Magistrate in the lower courts who is not technically educated.

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org