Westminster debate follows revelation that the UK would not seek a ‘death penalty assurance’ from the US for two accused Islamic State members
THE UK GOVERNMENT has failed to confirm that the UK’s opposition to the death penalty would be renewed as a policy, during a House of Commons debate on Monday [23 July] spurred by the potential execution in the US of two British terror suspects.
The debate follows controversy surrounding a leaked letter from UK home secretary Sajid Javid to US Attorney General Sessions, obtained by the Daily Telegraph newspaper, in which Javid confirmed that the UK would not be requesting the transfer to British soil of Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh, who are accused of belonging to an Islamic State terror cell which operated in Iraq and Syria.
Javid’s letter also made clear that the UK would not be seeking the traditional assurance that the death penalty would not be employed against British citizens, with Javid writing: “I am of the view that there are strong reasons for not requiring a death penalty assurance in this specific case, so no such assurances will be sought.”
As a result, Kotey and Elsheik could potentially face execution in the US.
“The issue is why and in what circumstances the UK Government are departing from their long-standing policy of opposing the death penalty ‘in all circumstances’.” SNP MP Joanna Cherry
Although the Home Office has refused to comment on the leaked material, the Telegraph has reported that other documents suggest that British officials believe Kotey and Elsheik may be sent to the notorious Guantanamo Bay detention camp without trial, which the UK Government is officially in favour of closing down. Despite this, according to the Telegraph, the UK Government would not oppose such a transfer.
During a heated session in the Commons, UK minister for security and economic crime Ben Wallace faced a barrage of questions and criticism from Labour, SNP, Liberal Democrat and Tory MPs, highlighting the shift in UK policy represented by Javid’s letter, from blanket condemnation of the death penalty to apparent complicity based on circumstance.
READ MORE: Ben Wray: The only ‘embarrassing’ chat needed is about your support for Saudia Arabia, Theresa May
Despite being repeatedly questioned on the matter by SNP MPs, Wallace offered no answer on whether opposition to the death penalty “in all circumstances”, as the UK Government’s own earlier death penalty strategy phrases it, would be renewed.
Joanna Cherry, SNP MP for Edinburgh South West, said in her contribution: “It really is not good enough for the minister to imply that any of us in the House is against terrorists being brought to justice. The issue is why and in what circumstances the UK Government are departing from their long-standing policy of opposing the death penalty ‘in all circumstances’. In using those words, I am reading from the UK Government’s death penalty strategy.
“Curiously, it was not of course renewed when it was due for renewal in 2016, so will the minister tell us when it will be renewed?”
“When will the government renew their own policy on the death penalty? When will that be brought before this House?” SNP MP Alison Thewliss
As Wallace did not address Cherry’s specific question in his response, SNP MP for Glasgow Central Alison Thewliss returned to the theme, saying: “The minister did not answer the question put by my honourable and learned friend, the Member for Edinburgh South West.
“When will the government renew their own policy on the death penalty? When will that be brought before this House?”
Despite Thewliss’s question being focused on UK policy, Wallace instead responded by focusing on the specific case, arguing: “The honourable lady makes one fundamental mistake. The two individuals in question are not under our control. They are not in our jurisdiction. We have no contact with them whatsoever.
“The reality is that this is based on a request from the United States Government to share evidence so that those individuals can potentially face trial in the United States.”
Asked by Cherry if requests were made by the Trump administration with regard to the waiving of the UK’s “long-standing” policy, Wallace responded that the White House had made no request for the UK Government to vary its assurances. He also confirmed that Prime Minister Theresa May was aware of the position take in the home secretary’s letter, prior to it becoming public.
Wallace also faced jeers from the House when he appeared to suggest his critics were in favour of releasing the alleged terrorists if prosecution in the UK was untenable. Responding to shadow home secretary Diane Abbott, Wallace said: “To say if we were unable to prosecute them in this country we should simply let them free to roam around the United Kingdom because it would upset (politicians here) not to share our evidence with the United States is simply bizarre and not justice to the victims.”
“I put it to ministers that they cannot be a little bit in favour of the death penalty. Either we offer consistent opposition, or we do not.” Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott
Abbott replied: “Ministers claim that the decision in this case does not reflect a change in our policy on assistance in US death penalty cases generally or the UK Government’s stance on the global abolition of the death penalty, but I put it to ministers that they cannot be a little bit in favour of the death penalty. Either we offer consistent opposition, or we do not.
“So let me remind the minister: capital punishment is not the law of this country; we do not extradite people to countries where it is potentially a sentence for the crime; the death penalty is outlawed under the Human Rights Act 1998; and it is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.”
“The home secretary must unequivocally insist that Britain’s longstanding position on the death penalty has not changed and seek cast-iron assurances from the US that it will not be used.” Amnesty International head of advocacy and programmes Allan Hogarth
When faced with further criticism from Labour MP for Leeds Central Hilary Benn, who argued that “it is precisely because of the barbaric nature of the crimes of which they are accused that we as a country have to show that we are better than them,” Wallace answered: “I am not going to take a lecture about being better from a right honourable gentleman who sat in government when people were being rendered from Libya and across to Libya.”
Outside of parliament, human rights organisation Amnesty International also expressed concern over the apparent shift represented by Javid’s letter. Amnesty head of advocacy and programmes Allan Hogarth commented: “This is a deeply worrying development. The home secretary must unequivocally insist that Britain’s longstanding position on the death penalty has not changed and seek cast-iron assurances from the US that it will not be used.
“A failure to seek assurances on this case seriously jeopardises the UK’s position as a strong advocate for the abolition of the death penalty and its work encouraging others to abolish the cruel, inhuman and degrading practice.”
Picture courtesy of jesua.nace
