Courage Foundation

Defense: We say it is a non-sequitur to contend that by removing the political offense exception that Parliament necessarily excluded the international law protection against extradition for political offenses.

Parliament can never envisage all circumstances that arise but it must have allowed the protection of human rights act including Article 5 in section 87.

It is clear that Parliament left the courts exercising the abuse of process jurisdiction to make good any deficiency that resulted from the express provision.

Defense returning to this on the political offense exception in US extradition treaties:https://twitter.com/couragefound/status/1232641818396962817 …

If there was something inherently impossible for a court in England to interpret a treaty, then look at European Convention – it is not impossible for this court to interpret a treaty. Courts do it in many different contexts...

...& when the courts give effect to statute consistent w/ treaty as much as possible, then of course the court looks at the interpretation of the treaty. US saying that you cannot interpret the treaty is falsified by centuries of precedent where courts have done precisely that.

Judge asks whether the issue should be a change in government policy as opposed to seeking change

Defense: Why was he seeking to publish the rules of engagement? They were published to show that war crimes were being committed, to show they breached their own rules of engagement.