It states "written assurances should be sought before agreeing to the provision of assistance that anyone found guilty would not face the death penalty" but "where no assurances are forthcoming or where there are strong reasons not to seek assurances, the case should automatically be deemed 'High Risk' and FCO Ministers should be consulted to determine whether, given the specific circumstances of the case, we should nevertheless provide assistance".<doc-sep>James Foley and the last journalists in Syria “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,” Javid wrote in his letter to Sessions, dated June 2. He noted that while the decision does mark a departure from the U.K.’s usual stance, “our decision in this case does not reflect a change in our policy on assistance in U.S. death penalty cases generally.” But his opponents don’t see it that way. Lawmakers and human-rights groups derided the unilateral move as setting a dangerous precedent. “We cannot pick and chose when to apply a principle as fundamental as opposition to the death penalty,” the Conservative lawmaker Anna Soubry said. Allan Hogarth, Amnesty International’s head of advocacy and programs, called the decision “a huge backward step.” The decision raises difficult moral questions: Who gets to try terrorist suspects whose alleged crimes cross borders? Who can punish them? And by what methods? Beyond the moral challenges to the decision, there are also legal ones. In addition to passing its own law abolishing the death penalty in 1965, the U.K. also signed on to the European Convention on Human Rights, which formally outlawed the practice for all signatories in 2010. And in 2003, the U.K. passed a law expressly forbidding the extradition of individuals to countries where they could face execution. “The Extradition Act of 2003 requires that they have something in writing that people will not be killed,” Thom Brooks, the dean of Durham Law School, told me. “Javid’s bad legal advice is ‘Just don’t ask.’” Adam Wagner, a human-rights lawyer, told me the decision could undermine the U.K.’s efforts to oppose capital punishment elsewhere. “The point of the policy is that we don’t just have an opposition to the death penalty at home,” he said. “We also oppose it as a country abroad. We’re opposed to the death penalty in China, we’re opposed to it in Iran, we’re opposed to it in the United States.” In an address to the House of Commons on Monday, British Security Minister Ben Wallace sought to downplay the government’s decision not to seek assurances, adding that a ministerial guidance permits the home secretary to make exceptions “where there are strong reasons not to seek assurances.” He noted the move was made as a condition for supporting Kotey and El-Sheikh’s prosecution on U.S. soil and that though the U.K. agreed to share intelligence with the U.S., it would not extradite the pair, as neither remains a British citizen. Though it is lawful for the British government to revoke the citizenship of suspected terror suspects while they are abroad in order to bar them from returning to the country, Brooks said the practice could run afoul of the U.K.’s international obligations if it leaves individuals stateless, as is the case for Kotey and El-Sheikh. “I can tell you with certainty that this is illegal,” he said. “You can’t leave people without a home. If they don’t have the citizenship of another country at the time their [British] citizenship is pulled, then it can’t be done.” ISIS and the foreign-fighter phenomenon Although the decision may be framed as a one-off, Wagner said the unilateral nature of the decision risks setting an undesirable precedent for British policy going forward. “They are always extremely serious cases, by definition—anything that could involve the death penalty is an extremely serious case,” he said. “As soon as you make exceptions, you open yourself up to more.”<doc-sep>The BBC's security correspondent Frank Gardner said a senior British government official told him that this case was not the first time that the UK had dropped its request for assurances that the death penalty would not be used.<doc-sep>Diane Abbott SLAMS 'shameful' Tories over death penalty top stories direct to your inbox SUBSCRIBE Invalid email Sign up to receive our rundown of the day'sdirect to your inbox When you subscribe we will use the information you provide to send you these newsletters. Sometimes they'll include recommendations for other related newsletters or services we offer. Our Privacy Notice explains more about how we use your data, and your rights. You can unsubscribe at any time. Ben Wallace, the Minister of State for Security and Economic crime, argued that the emergency question Dianne Abbott raised was flawed. Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott, asking an urgent question in the Commons, said it was not possible to be a "little bit in favour" of the death penalty. She said: “In an increasingly dangerous and unstable world one of our strengths as a country is our willingness to stand up unflinchingly for human rights. “It is a key aspect of our soft power so the minister will understand the widespread concern that the Government seems willing to abandon its longstanding principled opposition to the death penalty in this case. "Either we offer consistent opposition or we don't. “This decision to abandon our principled opposition to the death penalty is both abhorrent and shameful, and I call on ministers even at this late stage to reverse this decision. “Successive governments have always sought assurances that those who face justice in other countries will not face the death penalty.” Mr Wallace, in his reply, said nobody was extraditing anyone because Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh were not UK citizens. He added: “This is a matter of whether we were going to accept a request by the US to share evidence on individuals not within the UK, not within the EU. “No one is extraditing anyone in this country and we're not talking about UK citizens. Diane Abbott defeated in Brexit debate with Solicitor General No one is extraditing anyone in this country and we're not talking about UK citizens Ben Wallace “So the premise of the honourable ladies question in the first place is, I am afraid, skewed.” A Number 10 spokeswoman said Prime Minister Theresa May was "made aware" of the decision not to seek a "death penalty assurance" in the case of two members of the Islamic State cell nicknamed The Beatles. The decision was described as "extraordinary" by the Government's former reviewer of terrorism legislation Lord Carlile, who said it amounted to a dramatic change of policy without any discussion in Parliament. And Labour accused Mr Javid of "playing with the lives" of Britons all over the world by abandoning the UK's blanket opposition to the death penalty. The Downing Street spokeswoman said it was "a long-standing position of the Government to oppose the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle", but added that in this case it was "a priority to make sure that these men face criminal prosecution". Asked whether Mrs May approved of the letter, she replied: "The decision was taken by the Home Secretary and the former foreign secretary (Boris Johnson) and the PM was made aware of the decision. Diane Abbott called the Tories shameful and abhorrent while discussing the death penalty<doc-sep>
The UK abolished the death penalty over 50 years ago. Today, more than three-quarters of the world’s countries have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice, joining the ever-growing international consensus that the death penalty is a cruel and inhuman punishment that violates the right to life. The UK’s principled opposition to the death penalty paved the way for its firm position on capital punishment in its relations with other countries: a commitment “to oppose the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle”. In practice, this means the government must not provide assistance in criminal proceedings where there is a chance that the death penalty might be imposed, without first seeking assurances from the prosecuting government that the punishment will not be sought. But it goes wider than this: abolition of the death penalty has been one of the UK’s leading human rights foreign policy objectives for many years, reaffirmed last week by the Foreign Office at the launch of its annual human rights report. The Foreign Office provides financial support to organisations working to reduce the use of the death penalty globally. The Death Penalty Project has been a beneficiary of such grants for many years: this support makes a real difference in moving countries where it still exists closer to abolition. The UK was the first country to develop a global position on the abolition of the death penalty, and our approach has encouraged other nations to do the same. The UK’s strong voice against the death penalty is particularly critical when you consider that many of the countries that retain the death penalty around the world inherited their death penalty laws from us. That’s why it was so troubling to find out earlier this week that the home secretary, Sajid Javid, had privately agreed to assist the US in the federal prosecution of two formerly British men without seeking assurances that they would not face the death penalty. The revelations have caused outrage across the political divide, as Javid appears to have abandoned the UK’s longstanding and absolute opposition to the death penalty. Javid’s apparent concession that there may be circumstances where the UK is willing to turn a blind eye is ​worrying Javid’s apparent concession that there may be some circumstances where the UK is willing to turn a blind eye to the use of capital punishment is deeply worrying. It makes a mockery of the UK’s position elsewhere in the world, and undermines decades of diplomacy. We have moved overnight from a position of moral clarity to one of ambiguity and incoherence. This decision could lead to the government taking a step back on other human rights guarantees that are central to our values as a liberal democracy. We believed the UK’s opposition to the death penalty was grounded firmly in a belief in universal human rights and an understanding that the death penalty, in the government’s own words, “undermines human dignity”. In his letter, Javid said he was of the “view that there are strong reasons for not requiring a death penalty assurance in this specific case”. But the details of the case are irrelevant. The government’s commitment must hold true in all circumstances, regardless of the nature of the offence in question. Any aberration from this position is not just a departure from a long-held and principled policy, but is damaging to human rights everywhere. This unprecedented action has huge implications, not only for our leadership on the international stage, but also for any individuals, British or otherwise, who may be facing the death penalty around the world.