in his notes words to the effect that Gary wasn’t right in the head.
Gary was eccentric and clearly vulnerable, and he paid a high price for his naivety and openness and his attempts to be ridiculously helpful when he was arrested.
• • •
I continued to be confused and worried by David Pannick’s performance but I still wasn’t prepared for his answer when Baroness Hale asked him if he regarded what the judges in the High Court had described as threats that amounted to anathema as incentives or threats. Mr Pannick replied, ‘Incentives, M’Lady.’
I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. How could threats such as those made against Gary if he didn’t accept a plea bargain possibly be described as incentives?
Will the courts start to describe blackmail as an incentive to keep a secret?
We raised QC Pannick’s performance with Karen and she said she didn’t know what was wrong with him, as he had a good reputation.
I was overwhelmed with outrage and worry and wished that Edmund Lawson was there. Where was he when we needed him?
I looked at the Law Lords, who were supposed to be listening to arguments in order to make a judgment; rightly or wrongly, I believed that their minds had never been open to argument or reason. It seemed to me that the decision had been made and the only reason they were there in front of us was to attempt to publicly justify extradition and even possibly to attempt to justify a life sentence being given for a non-violent crime.
The reality is that our judges and politicians rarely refuse the US any demand they make.
Thankfully Edward Fitzgerald, acting for Liberty, spoke up for Gary. Although he hadn’t prepared an in-depth response we were very grateful to have Edward there.
We were later informed by other barristers that David Pannick QC had claimed that his performance in the Lords that day was down to him feeling tired. But that didn’t explain why he had ended Gary’s case early, by turning down the following day in court that had already been arranged for Gary’s defence.
Could someone please explain what the heck was going on?
• • •
Some months afterwards we discovered that Gary’s original QC, Edmund Lawson, had died suddenly, apparently of a stroke. We were shocked and saddened, all the more so because Edmund left young children.
We were nervous waiting for the judgment to come through and weren’t optimistic because of what we perceived as the shambles in the Lords.
Every time I saw an email from our solicitor Karen on the computer, I was actually scared to look at it.
On 29 July, Karen informed us that the judgment was due to be announced on the following day and that she wasn’t allowedto tell us the result until then. Gary, Lucy, Wilson and I were waiting for Karen to call us when we heard the judgment being announced on BBC TV. The lords had ruled against Gary. What a way to hear such a devastating decision. The Law Lords upheld the decision to extradite and dismissed the appeal.
It was no surprise to me as I was convinced that the Law Lords had made their decision before even hearing the case. But you always cling to the hope that good will prevail, and hearing that we had lost floored us.
Gary was devastated, as he thought this was the end. I rarely cry in front of anyone and tried to wipe the tears away, but they were coming too fast for me to hold back and we all cried together.
When I managed to compose myself and look at how this was destroying Gary, my sadness was replaced by anger. I told Gary he wasn’t going anywhere and that it wasn’t the end: we would win his freedom. What was happening was wrong and just about everyone knew it.
When a sentence of six months in the UK can become a sentence of sixty years in the US, it is patently clear that our justice systems bear scant resemblance.
Duncan Campbell wrote in
The Guardian
after the hearing in the Lords in 2008:
‘The difference between the American system and our own is not
Gary was eccentric and clearly vulnerable, and he paid a high price for his naivety and openness and his attempts to be ridiculously helpful when he was arrested.
• • •
I continued to be confused and worried by David Pannick’s performance but I still wasn’t prepared for his answer when Baroness Hale asked him if he regarded what the judges in the High Court had described as threats that amounted to anathema as incentives or threats. Mr Pannick replied, ‘Incentives, M’Lady.’
I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. How could threats such as those made against Gary if he didn’t accept a plea bargain possibly be described as incentives?
Will the courts start to describe blackmail as an incentive to keep a secret?
We raised QC Pannick’s performance with Karen and she said she didn’t know what was wrong with him, as he had a good reputation.
I was overwhelmed with outrage and worry and wished that Edmund Lawson was there. Where was he when we needed him?
I looked at the Law Lords, who were supposed to be listening to arguments in order to make a judgment; rightly or wrongly, I believed that their minds had never been open to argument or reason. It seemed to me that the decision had been made and the only reason they were there in front of us was to attempt to publicly justify extradition and even possibly to attempt to justify a life sentence being given for a non-violent crime.
The reality is that our judges and politicians rarely refuse the US any demand they make.
Thankfully Edward Fitzgerald, acting for Liberty, spoke up for Gary. Although he hadn’t prepared an in-depth response we were very grateful to have Edward there.
We were later informed by other barristers that David Pannick QC had claimed that his performance in the Lords that day was down to him feeling tired. But that didn’t explain why he had ended Gary’s case early, by turning down the following day in court that had already been arranged for Gary’s defence.
Could someone please explain what the heck was going on?
• • •
Some months afterwards we discovered that Gary’s original QC, Edmund Lawson, had died suddenly, apparently of a stroke. We were shocked and saddened, all the more so because Edmund left young children.
We were nervous waiting for the judgment to come through and weren’t optimistic because of what we perceived as the shambles in the Lords.
Every time I saw an email from our solicitor Karen on the computer, I was actually scared to look at it.
On 29 July, Karen informed us that the judgment was due to be announced on the following day and that she wasn’t allowedto tell us the result until then. Gary, Lucy, Wilson and I were waiting for Karen to call us when we heard the judgment being announced on BBC TV. The lords had ruled against Gary. What a way to hear such a devastating decision. The Law Lords upheld the decision to extradite and dismissed the appeal.
It was no surprise to me as I was convinced that the Law Lords had made their decision before even hearing the case. But you always cling to the hope that good will prevail, and hearing that we had lost floored us.
Gary was devastated, as he thought this was the end. I rarely cry in front of anyone and tried to wipe the tears away, but they were coming too fast for me to hold back and we all cried together.
When I managed to compose myself and look at how this was destroying Gary, my sadness was replaced by anger. I told Gary he wasn’t going anywhere and that it wasn’t the end: we would win his freedom. What was happening was wrong and just about everyone knew it.
When a sentence of six months in the UK can become a sentence of sixty years in the US, it is patently clear that our justice systems bear scant resemblance.
Duncan Campbell wrote in
The Guardian
after the hearing in the Lords in 2008:
‘The difference between the American system and our own is not
Similar Books
