What’s wrong with Lord Goldsmith? He’s been insisting today that Andrei Lugovoi must be extradited to the UK, even though it’s perfectly clear Russia cannot lawfully extradite him, and that the 1957 Convention does not oblige them to. So I’m astonished that Lord Goldsmith is talking publicly as though the UK has a proper legal basis on which to demand http://www.gooakley.com/ extradition. Doesn’t he read Head of Legal?
Seriously, the Attorney has his own international lawyers and criminal lawyers, plus all the resources of FCO lawyers and the CPS, plus any counsel in London. What’s going on? I’m happy to have my view corrected if someone thinks I’m wrong; otherwise I think we have to suspect Lord Goldsmith well knows his demand is legally dodgy and that the Russian view is legally sound, and that what we’re hearing from ministers is simply diplomatic posturing.
Lord Goldsmith, allegedly, has a reputation for making the wrong decision. Allegedly, BAE/Saudi Arabia. Allegedly, Iraq war. Why allegedly change an alleged pattern of alleged behaviour now allegedly?
Spent an hour looking up some law on this. Not a great deal of time… and, of course, I won’t get a fee for my time! I think you are right…. so political posturing seems a not unreasonable analysis.
Mind you…. Aerospace contracts…quite another matter…. and the legitimacy of the war on Iraq?