Skip to main content

Will Mr Lugovoi come to court?

I wonder why the Kremlin is so vocal on the question whether Mr Lugovoi may be extradited to London. The Russian Federation’s Constitution (adopted in 1993), Article 10, provides (unless this translation is inaccurate): “State power in the Russian Federation is exercised on the basis of the separation of the legislative, executive and judiciary branches. The bodies of legislative, executive and judiciary powers are independent.” So the extradition decision ought to be up to the courts, not the Kremlin.
As for the substantive question, Article 61(1) of the Russian Federation's Constitution provides: “The citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deported out of Russia or extradited to another state.” But it does not end there because Article 15(4) provides: "The commonly recognized principles and norms of the international law and the international treaties of the Russian Federation are a component part of its legal system. If an international treaty of the Russian Federation stipulates other rules than those stipulated by the law, the rules of the international treaty apply.” Which seems to imply that if Russia is party to an international treaty that permits extradition, the treaty overrides Article 61.
According to the BBC Mr Lugovoi himself held a press conference today and said (amid a good deal else): “I will hire serious lawyers in London in order to defend my honest name in the British law-enforcement agencies. If the British authorities refuse to conduct a fair trial, I will be prepared to appeal to the international court in The Hague." By "British authorities" does he mean the judiciary? And what trial does he have in mind? Does he think that he might be extradited? I take it that he does not intend to come to London voluntarily to be tried on the poisoning charge. Perhaps he envisages a different kind of trial - bringing a claim himself in the civil courts for defamation? I wonder who the defendant(s) would be, and how Mr Lugovoi would give evidence: not by personally attending court in London, presumably. We must wait to find out.
To bring such a claim would imply, interestingly, a degree of trust in the impartiality of the judiciary of England and Wales. He does, it seems, have time for lawyers, at least the "serious" variety, which is a nice bit of good press for them, for a change.

Comments

Hywel said…
Have the Russians signed a treaty with the UK though? as you previously referred to it being a memorandum of understanding. Though it does seem like an extremely vague provision for a constitution "Citizens have these protections unless the government decides otherwise"!

The problem I have is that if the UK presses for Lugovoi's extradition where does that leave the "reciprocal" extradition of Berezovsky. There are IMV some serious questions to be asked about whether he could expect a fair trial.
Jo Hayes said…
Yes, a treaty has been in existence for decades. The memo of understanding recently reached between the two countries' prosecuting authorities would have been pointless if there had been no treaty.
If Lugovoi were extradited, the extradition of Berezovsky would be where it was before - i.e. not reciprocal, but standing or falling on its own merits as they apear to independent courts. The Russian prosecutors have to formulate a charge which is an extraditable offence and produce evidence in support for court scrutiny. Lugovoi is wanted for murder which is an extraditable offence and the English prosecutors obviously think they have evidence good enough to convict, i.e. beyond reasonable doubt. I don't know whether there is a charge of an extraditable offence or evidence to support it against Berezovsky. If there is, he could fight extradition through the UK courts criticising the evidence against him, any defects in procedure and the chances of a fair trial in the Russian courts.
Hywel said…
Thanks - my knowledge of UK/Russia extradition provisions increased by an infinite amount :-)

I just suspect that the Russians will link it to the Berezovsky extradition regardless of the legal position

Popular posts from this blog

My Remainer's Diary Day 299

For 298 days I have kept my #Remainer's Diary on Facebook. Two nights ago my FB account became inaccessible without explanation. So I'm back on Blogger.
Diary Day 299: the UK's Office of Budget Responsibility published its first Fiscal Risks Report, a 312-page tome, in accordance with a requirement introduced by Parliament in October 2015 that the OBR must produce a fiscal risks report at least once every two years. It is freely downloadable by anyone.  Fiscal is a fancy word for pertaining to government finances. Derivation: 16th century, from Latin fiscālis concerning the state treasury, from fiscus public money, the public purse. It is about government income and spending.  The Fiscal Risks Report refers to a wide range of "fiscal pressures", and says that the risks posed by Brexit "do not supplant the possible shocks and likely pressures that we have already discussed, but they could affect the likelihood and impact of many of them."  It states that imp…

My #Remainer's Diary Day 300: constitutional crisis is coming

My #Remainer's Diary Day 300: I mull over a joint statement from the First Ministers of Wales and Scotland, Carwyn Jones and Nicola Sturgeon about the repeal bill. It says: “We have... put forward constructive proposals about how we can deliver an outcome which will protect the interests of all the nations in the UK, safeguard our economies and respect devolution.  “Regrettably, the bill does not do this. Instead, it is a naked power grab, an attack on the founding principles of devolution and could destabilise our economies.”  So a constitutional crisis that was latent ever since 23rd June 2016 is due to be thrashed out in Westminster debates.  A spokeswoman for the Maybot said she was not aware of a contingency plan for what might happen if Scotland or Wales refused legislative consent.  That is apart from the rows there will be about the bill's Henry VIII clause powers and putting human rights in doubt.  As the clock ticks, businesses act to protect themselves.  EasyJet announced…

Iran: the minority that will not let go

I am thinking about places in the world where women are oppressed. Iran for example. There, I gather, militia roam the streets intimidating and attacking women who behave or dress in ways of which they disapprove. In my country, such militia would be arrested and tried for public order offences. It is not that the British have no opinions about what is acceptable dress or behaviour in public and what is not. Of course we have opinions. But individuals behave in a way that is their own choice, provided that it does not contravene a specific law, and it may be a poor choice, but it is the individual's and not imposed. Live and let live, and mind your own business, are mottos here. And gangs who roam the streets trying to impose their own ideas on others tend to get arrested.
So what essentially is different about Iranians? I suspect, nothing is. A minority of society suppose they have a superior social and ethical code but that is normal in any society. The trouble is th…