CHRIS TAPPIN AND GARY MULGREW

CHRIS TAPPING AND GARY MULGREW


Since my last posting on the plight of Chris Tappin the newspapers have confirmed that what I said would happen to him, based on the reading of Gary Mulgrew’s book, 'Gang of One', has happened. Since then I have found and read the judgement that refused Chris Tappin’s appeal against extradition. It reveals how impossible it is for the legal system to make itself aware of highly relevant facts and to take them into account and to deal with the real situation rather than merely judging the outcome of what is little more than a joust between legal champions, just playing their game and earning very large fees for playing it.

What is the ‘real situation’ then? When interviewed after his appeal was refused, Chris Tappin, spoke to TV interviewers. He compared his situation with that of Abu Qatada, whose extradition to Jordan to face terrorism charges had been forbidden by the European Court of Justice. Why can he be protected and not me? he asked.

No-one seemed to have an answer to that question but the real situation is that in Qatada’s case someone was asking about what would happen after the extradition and the answer was that it would amount to an assault on his human rights. There’s no need to go into detail. The fact that the man is a terrorist is not the point. The point is, what would happen to him after he left these shores? And fundamental to that is the belief that what would happen if Jordan would not meet the standards of treatment, whether in or out of court, that he would receive in the UK, or Europe.

So Mr Tappin, hit the nail right on the head when he asked his question. Did anyone here ask what would happen after the extradition? And then to ask if, on the basis of what is now known from, for example Gary Mulgrew’s account, whether that treatment is of a standard that we in the UK would regard as reasonable and just. The answer is that no-one concerned with the extradition has apparently asked that question. Certainly not the lawyers involved in the appeal and so far as I can judge, no-one in any position to influence events. And Mr Tappin is now out of sight and, they all hope, out of mind. Not out of his family’s, though. Not out of mine either.

***********************

I hope that Gary Mulgrew and his publishers will not object to what follows which is a fairly large précis of an early part of the book ‘Gang of One’ and is perhaps larger than is customary when choosing a quotation to illustrate a review. I hope that they will see that my intention is only to support my point that Gary Mulgrew’s experience should be enough to stop all future extraditions to the USA – until that fine country starts behaving like … a fine country in all aspects of its treatment of human beings.

On his arrival in Houston the ‘NatWest Three’ were greeted by twenty-seven officers, all armed, some with FBI jackets, some with ‘ICE’ (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) jackets, some marked ‘US Marshals’ and some just plain police uniforms. Mulgrew was appropriated by one he called Marshal Dave who, after some concern was expressed by other officers that as the Three had no visas it would probably be correct to send them straight back to the UK, decided it was time to process him. What follows is an abbreviated account of how this was done:
Marshall Dave turned towards me and shouted ‘You! Stand up and come with me’.

I followed him and another marshal into a small side room with no windows. The second marshal , still wearing sunglasses, chewing gum and wielding a truncheon took up his position against a wall.

‘Turn around and face the wall,’ barked Marshal Dave. This guy oozed danger and intimidation. I sensed he needed only the barest of excuses.

‘Face me!’ I turned around. He stood right in front of me. He was much shorter than me.

‘Don’t you fuckin’ look at me. Did you fuckin’ look at me?’ I quickly averted my eyes from his gaze.

‘He fuckin’ looked at you, boss,’ offered the irritant, tapping his stick gently into one hand.

‘Did you fuckin’ look at me? Dave asked again, moving ever close to me.

‘No, er, yes … I mean, I didn’t.’

‘Don’t fuckin’ talk to me like that!’ Dave screamed.

You answer me “Yes, sir,” or “No, sir” You got that?’

‘Yes, sir, or no, sir’ repeated the parrot in the corner.

‘Now,’ said Marshal Dave, breathing heavily. ‘Listen up and listen good: here are the rules. Number one: you answer “Yes,sir” or “No, sir” – nothing else. If you answer any other way I will deem that as an attempt to escape. You understand?’

‘Attempt to escape’ murmured the parrot as if the words tasted of chocolate.

‘Yes, sir,’ I said, my eyes fixed to the floor.

‘Number two. You … do … not … eyeball … me … If you eyeball me, that is an attempt to escape. Do you understand?’

This kafkaesque verbal assault continued to establish that any form of speech that did not arise out of words addressed to him by a marshal would be regarded as an attempt to escape and any attempt to escape would automatically result in a new indictment, the penalty for which would mean another five years imprisonment.

Then came the body search. Mulgrew was asked what he had on his person and warned that if something was found on him that he had not revealed then this would be an attempt to escape. Mulgrew said he had nothing on him (his passport had already been taken). Mulgrew was then required to remove each item of clothing as instructed by Marshal Dave. When naked and facing the wall he was told to ‘spread his cheeks’, then to ‘lift his sac’ then to turn around and pull his foreskin back. Throughout the time he was warned that any normal human response to these indignities would be treated as ‘an attempt to escape’.

During this experience Mulgrew thought of England. ‘Of Tony Blair. I remembered I had heard him saying how we would be well treated. How the magistrate and judges knew we would be well treated. I thought of my family, sitting at home, wondering what was happening to me. Probably tuned into News at Ten by now, with some Labour puppet assuring everyone we were in the best possible hands. I wished they could switch over live from the studio to see exactly what good hands I was in.’

And then he had not the faintest idea of what lay before him. Marshal Dave was but the beginning

We should remind ourselves that Gary Mulgrew, at this stage of the US legal process, was innocent of what was laid against him. Innocent until proven guilty. Isn't that how it goes?