(Con):...There is a second
reason: the use of the extradition arrangements to pursue a
political or commercial end. For the United States it is very often
a commercial end. In this I speak of the case of my former
constituent Dr Mike Lynch, chairman of one of our most successful
companies. He sold his British company to an American company; it
was sold under British law in Britain, bought by an American
company and operated in Britain. After a bit, the American company
had so badly mucked up the running of this business that it wanted
an excuse for the sum it had paid, so it called on the British
authorities to prosecute Dr Lynch, saying he had misled it. That
may or may not be true. It had done very extensive due diligence
before, so it is difficult to believe that so great an American
company with so much opportunity to look beforehand should have
been misled, but that is what it said.
The British authorities investigated and found that there was no
case to answer. Therefore, they declined the prosecution. The
American company, Hewlett Packard perfectly
rightly—I have no objection to this—went to the civil courts to
claim its case. That case has now been heard at great length. It
is probably the longest case of this kind ever held in this
country. Dr Lynch was cross-examined for many days. The case is
over as far as the evidence is concerned, but there has so far
not been a judgment, so we do not know whether the civil courts
in this country will find my former constituent guilty or
innocent. Hewlett Packard is clearly worried
about this case. Indeed, to read it one might be worried oneself
if one were on that side. But still, we do not know. It is for
the judge to decide.
British justice is known internationally as the fairest system in
the world. That is why lots of companies that are not here agree
with other companies that are not here for their court cases,
should they come up, to be decided in British courts; they know
that they will get a fair deal. Hewlett Packard
has however demanded that Dr Lynch be extradited from Britain to
have the case heard not in this country but in the United States.
I am quite sure the reason is that it feels a United States court
is more likely to make a decision which pleases it—particularly
given the geographical position of the court calling for the
extradition and its long-standing relationship with
Hewlett Packard—and more likely to accept its
case than the British one...
To read the whole debate, CLICK
HERE
