 We've got two cases here, which are current, which are about our relationship with the United States, about the treaty that we created. And it really shows very clearly where the tensions lie and where there's a strong sense by many people that there's an unevenness between the parties, between the sides of this treaty. It started off, and I remember it well because I'm a member of the House of Lords, as well as being a practicing lawyer. I remember that this legislation going through because there had been the European arrest warrant had been created, and there was a strong feeling in the government at the time, which was new labor, that, well, if we were doing this with the Europeans, we should do it with our great friends, the Americans. And what seemed to be lost in it was a question of whether there was equality of arms. Were we talking about legal systems, which were really where there was parity, where they were much the same, in terms of the standards of due process? So I'm going to bring in David Davis, a well-known civil libertarian, a member of parliament, and somebody who really went to the wall himself at times to protect rights and liberties. And I want to know, David, from you first, before I introduce everyone to Rad Seeger, I want to ask you first, what is your concern about the extradition treaty that we currently have with the United States? Thank you, Helen, and the key concern is it's incredibly one-sided and unjust. But let me just elaborate for a second on your characterization at the beginning. It came about, this particular treaty at the time of 9-11 and 7-7, when Tony Blair saw we had to be shoulder to shoulder, I think was his words, with the United States. He wasn't the only one. The whole British establishment was in that place at that time. And this treaty was cobbled together and eventually started to take force in 2007. But it was supposed to be for terrorism and murder and pedophiles. That was how it was sold. I mean, I was overruled in the Tory party. I was a Shadow Home Secretary at the time. I was overruled by Michael Howard because he was convinced by the then government that that's what this was for and that there were imminent cases. And what came about was this spectacularly one-sided treaty at all measures. If we want somebody to be extradited from the United States, we have to demonstrate probable cause. They just have to have reasonable suspicion. They have the right of challenging the courts before being extradited, arising partly from the Constitution. We barely have that challenge at all. Their Secretary of State can just say no. Our Home Secretary has to go through real hoops and hurdles and can barely say no. You may remember the Gary McKinnon case was actually resolved at the 11th hour because it was so difficult to meet the criteria for stopping it. And in terms of parity, the treaty since its inception, I think has allowed 135 Brits to be extradited to the States and 11 Americans to be extradited here. That's the imbalance. And of the 135, remember this is about violence and terrorism and pedophiles and all the rest of it. Actually, 99 of them were nonviolent, even on the government's measure of it. And I suspect a couple more if you measure the way I would. And what's happened is a number of things. I mean, partly it's been a huge commercial grouping. These nonviolent people, there was the NatWest 3, there was a man called Christopher Tapping, somebody else called Corothers. And of course, the current case, Mike Lynch, which I'll talk about briefly in a second. But all of these cases, plus some very political cases, which I think we're gonna talk about a bit more in a second, a science, and to some extent it's a coolest case. All dominate the exchange that goes on. This is not what parliament, whether it's the Lords or the commons, thought they were signing up to. I doubt it's even what the government of the day thought they were signing up to. Now, let me just give one example of how this asymmetry is actually amplified by other aspects of the differences between our systems. The Mike Lynch case, Mike Lynch, people won't necessarily know about him, created the biggest software company in Britain, a company called Autonomy, to sold a few years ago to Hewlett Packard HP. It was sold for about $10 billion, about 7 billion pounds. Very shortly after that, the management of Hewlett Packard changed. They decided they'd pay too much. They tried to prosecute Mr. Lynch for fraud in the States, even though the company was a British company on the British stock exchange, bought in Britain at the time. Maybe bought by an American company, but it was bought in Britain. And they tried that prosecution. They have now got extradition rates out for him, which are suspended whilst a civil case goes through. But that's the sort of thing. And this is the combination of the Department of Justice and American lawyers using this exhibition treaty. And this brings us to the key point here, because the legal cases are, sorry, the legal system, the unbalance. We think of our system as being very fair. In practice, what the Americans do with this treaty, firstly, they extend the American law to cover the whole world. They do it by various mechanisms using wire fraud charges and so on, but they cover the whole world. Secondly, the Department of Justice in the States essentially uses these laws and this extradition treaty as a weapon of international commerce, of forcing their will on the rest of the world. And that's not just true for the Department of Justice. It's also true for other departments in the States, including the president. There is then the political nature of the US legal system. Many of the officials in the system are elected. So if you're a prosecutor, having a high profile case against a foreigner with no local supporters is a great thing as a stepping stone to a well-paid or a powerful job. Then you've got the biasing effect, and I can go into this later if you want, of choosing to prosecute in some US jurisdictions. Imagine being prosecuted for a security offense or an espionage offense, let's say, in a part of America where a large number of the population work for the NSA or CIA. And then there's a ruthless use of plea bargaining. Now, your listeners may be surprised to know that 97% of cases brought in the States are into the conviction. One reason for this is if you are facing prosecution in the States and you are told by the prosecutors who are largely determined the sentence, if you plead guilty, you'll get a few years in an open prison. If you plead innocent or you plead not guilty, then we will throw the book at you and you'll get 30 years in a closed prison. We will resist all attempts of parole. We will resist all attempts for you to serve the sentence in your own country. So you'll serve in a prison in Texas or whatever, sharing a cell with some violent gangster or whatever. That's the way it does. And so what it becomes is only rational to plead guilty. Yes, you're facing not guilty three years in open prison, guilty 35 years in a high security prison. That's how the two systems are, asymmetric. The American system is not the same as ours. So what does this mean? It means an already unbalanced treaty is in its asymmetry. And so we need to put it right. We need to actually change this treaty so that it's got symmetrical applications. So we de-politicize it, or at least equalize the political power that we guarantee rights to UK citizens that Americans have got, that we cut out political prosecutions, that we force the forum. In other words, if something is carried out for crime is carried out in Britain, it's tried in Britain, it's carried out in America, it's tried in America. And we perhaps should limit it more to violent crimes or crimes that end in death or maybe kidnapping, that sort of thing. And we should also think about limits of the Vienna Convention as a whole series of things. And I know you've only got an hour, so I'll stop there. I'm going to take us over to Rad to speak about a very particular case and his experience of being involved in the system as a lawyer, advising a family. But I want to ask you, David, I mean, here you are. You're saying that you would like to see a reform of this treaty. Your party's in government, and you yourself were a great Brexiteer, anxious to leave the European Union. And what it means is that what we were sold was the idea that we would be making very strong trading arrangements with the United States. We would be strengthening our commercial relationship there. And yet you're telling us that there's a lack of balance because the United States use the law as a weapon of international commerce, that they use it to their own advantage in the commercial sphere. I don't understand. It seems to me that there's a set of contradictions there. Oh, on the contrary, I mean, what the need to develop a new treaty with America does is make it more important to get the driver. And indeed, one of my concerted body colleagues, Tom Tuggenhardt, who is the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, he said exactly that, that the new relationship with America isn't just about money and trade. It's about a common understanding of justice and a common treatment of each other's citizens. Our citizens are not given the protection American citizens are, and we should equalize that up. Precisely because if we don't, it will be a very one-sided relationship even more than it is now. I mean, but what chance, what chance with Mr. Trump in office? What chance do you think we have of him saying that the justice system in America does anything other than great, great, great, we are the best, best, best. We know the narrow vocabulary at his disposal and he's not likely to admit that anything needs changing. Oh, I think he will. Well, he doesn't have to admit publicly that. What needs to happen in detail in the treaty is that we get it right. And our own, the people on our own side in this negotiation know that. I mean, they already know that we've got some hard arguments to have over this. But the commercial arguments are big. So that says to us, if you don't do this right, you're going to have this problem amplified. The commercial arguments I've been talking about, the NatWest 3, Mike Lynch and so on, they'll be repeated year after year after year and the British people get very fed up with any treaty that doesn't put this right. Justice must come before money and it must come at the top of the negotiating agenda. And I think it will. I think it will. I've talked to the people involved. I used to be involved in myself and I think it will. Well, I... And it's for us to argue it will. As a lawyer, I would say that that's heartening that you have such optimism. But I just wanted to ask you about a case that you mentioned because the Gary McKinnon case was an example where one saw the United States digging its heels in. They wanted Gary McKinnon to be extradited from this country to United States. And he was a young man where it became very clear and there was a lot of medical evidence. He was someone who was suffering from Asperger's syndrome. He was totally immersed in the computer and he was able to hack into the American system because he was interested in UFOs, unidentified flying objects. You know, this was not somebody who was really going to be bringing down the system because he was some dark force in collusion with either China or Russia. You know, he was a soul with problems. And yet the United States insisted and kept insisting on their entitlement to bring him to the United States where he was going to be facing charges relating to terrorism. So, you know, it doesn't augure well for any optimism. I mean, if we're looking at the Assange case, here is a case in which somebody exposed the American system to scrutiny by divulging a lot of material. And the process seems to be highly political where he is being looked at as if he is a spy, as if he is involved in terrorism. And we know that that will involve incredible political reactions in the United States and the possibilities of fair trial become hugely diminished. So, you know, we have an example beyond just now and we have another example and it's the one that I'm going to take us to which involves Rad Seiger and his engagement in an extradition matter. I mean, do you agree, David, that when there seems to be any kind of political overlay is very hard to get the United States to bend and we tend to be rather complicit and putilanimous in resisting the demands. It took 10 years to stop Gary McKinnon being handed over to the Americans. 10 years, we had to go to all manner of courts in order to prevent that. And eventually, Theresa May as Prime Minister or as Home Secretary stopped it happening because the medical evidence was so strong. Here we have other cases where there seems to be a political undertow and there's a different way of measuring cases when it comes to the United States. So I just wonder what do you feel about the Assange situation? Well, I think, yeah, the point is right. I think one of the reasons, I don't think it was bluntly at the end of the day, I don't think it was a medical evidence alone that moved Theresa May as Home Secretary because it was a very last minute thing. I think it was the last 24 hours in which she moved. I think it was the force of political opinion as well because right across that, you're right, it went up and then I remember virtually all of those 10 years and it went right across the commons. Everybody felt that this was an injustice happening. And that's, I think, as much as anything else is what moved her. Now, the same will not apply to Assange because Assange is a more partisan figure in these terms but the case is still clearly political. You go through the actual facts of it and it's clearly a political case. And this is why I say this treaty has to be rewritten and it has to be rewritten in such a way that the scope for politics is strictly limited. McKinnon's case, take McKinnon's case, McKinnon broke into the Pentagon computer, right? How did he break into it? Was it an act of genius? No, it was because some idiots in the Pentagon had left the password for access as password, right? That's the person who should have been prosecuted. The member of the Pentagon who did that. So, they made a huge political cause that I brought up and they were wrong to do so but that's what happens with American justice system. It's not as insulated as ours is. And so we have to design the treaty to cut that out, make it essentially a judicial decision as best we can. Now, it would ever be perfect any more than the European arrest warrant is perfect. We're trying to balance off different values but it's incredibly important we get it right. And you say you don't feel optimistic about it. Look, we are working together did not feel necessarily optimistic about defeating 90 days detention without charge, but we did, you know, we didn't feel optimistic about defeating 42 days detention but we did, you know, so it just takes a long, sometimes a 10 year long campaign to win the battle and get it right, but justice is worth it. But there might be some people who suffer in the interim. Yeah, I'm afraid that's true. But again, we fight every single case as well. I mean, these things are one of the things where you run long-term political campaigns but while you're doing it, you're fighting for Mike Lynch or Christopher Tappin or whoever it may be or indeed the rights of the Dunn family the other way around. Those are all parts of what makes it important. You know, frankly if it was just a theoretical exercise done in law school, and you know, it wouldn't matter. It's the people that make it matter and so people actually flesh out the politics of it and it's what make MPs who don't spend their time thinking about the ins and outs of international treaties normally, say this has gone wrong. This is absolutely unjust, let's correct it and it will be that that drives it. But there is a sort of, there is something awful about the fact that, you know, if someone has been demonized and it doesn't have a sort of general popularity that their chances of getting justice are greatly diminished because of who they are rather than what the issues are and the unfair situation and many would say that's what's happening with Assange. Yeah, and you're forced, and I'm afraid you're forced back there to the Voltaire argument. You know, I may not disagree with what you do or what you say, but I defend the death you're right to do it. That's very, although as a Frenchman who said it, it's a very British concept and that's what we find. There is another group, by the way, who are, in a way it's worse than what happens to Assange. I agree with your characterization. And that are those people who, when they go into the American system, are faced with this hideous plea bargaining system and they have to plead guilty because otherwise they're gonna destroy the entire rest of their lives. So you plead guilty and then you've got no recourse because everybody is like, well, you did guilty. You must be guilty. No, no, I mean, American lawyers tell us all the time about the gasliness of being somebody representing someone who ends up pleading guilty to something they really didn't do because the risks are too high that they're going to end up having the whole of their life spent behind bars if they take a chance. And you did mention something else before I moved to Rad. You did mention something else which is not understood often by British people, which is that different parts and different states in the United States might create higher risks for individuals. I do remember that on the financial stuff, there was an extradition which was to Texas which was particularly risky for the people who were facing accusations of a commercial nature because the courts there were known to be really tough on anybody who came in front of on financial matters and juries were hostile. But I mean, you can imagine if a Sange ended up in a trial in East Virginia or where the CIA is and many of the people who are involved in the system have strong links with the intelligence services and with the establishment and so on. And especially when he's become a hate figure, it becomes very problematic about fair trial. And we should be as concerned whoever it is that the risks of they're not being due process. Yes, I mean, in areas like East Virginia and the Maryland areas, I think you're not allowed as a defense lawyer to object to a juror because he's a spook, you know, you can't do that. It's actually explicitly prevented. But two things run together here. If you think about the politicization of the sort of prosecution system, if you want to get on in that legal system and get appointed, you're likely to go with something which is incredibly popular, not to say populist in the local area, which automatically says the jury is going to be inclined against your client. And if the client's a foreigner and it's true here, I'm afraid, you know, if somebody is a foreigner in a legal system, they don't have a base of support naturally, you know? And that's, you can't get around that fact. But of course it makes it risk-free for a prosecutor to go hammer and tongs at somebody who comes from elsewhere. And that person, of course, is probably confined in a cell, allowed one document a day. In the Mike Lidge case, it's just, civil case, it's equivalently, criminal case is just concluded, they had 11 million documents. Imagine trying to run that case from a prison cell. And by the way, spend tens of billions of dollars defending yourself in a system which doesn't have legal aid. So, you know, you've really got a compounding of problems together. And it's, which is why I say, you've got to somehow find a way in the treaties of guaranteeing equal rights. Each expedition treaty has got a problem like this. Other ones, the European one has got problems with these old Eastern European countries, old Soviet laws. This one in the States is one of really, you mentioned the phrase equality of arms. There's no equality of arms at all for a British citizen going into that system. I want to then move to you, Rad, because this is the sort of other side of the coin. You've been involved in a case which has been about attempting to get someone brought before the British courts because of conduct that should be prosecuted. And whatever the outcome might be, that they should be brought to trial in the ordinary way. Because someone has ended up dead. Would you like to just tell us about the case that you've been involved in and how you became involved? Yeah, sure. Good afternoon, Helen. Look, on the 27th of August, one of the members of our community, a beautiful young man, Harry Dunne, who was 19 years old at the time, was riding his motorbike just outside one of the United States Air Force bases called RAF Crouton, perfectly safely. And he was struck by a car being driven by Ann Secoulis, who we've subsequently found out as a CIA intelligence officer who made the mistake that evening of driving on the wrong side of the road. So I live about 300 yards away from the family. When he died, obviously we were all in shock, but we gave the family the space and time to recover. But rumors started swirling around the community that there were going to be issues about a prosecution and that she was an American. And Americans typically are flown back to the United States after these sort of things. And there have been many, many hundreds over the decades. And I started to become concerned that they wouldn't get the justice that they need. And Helen, you'll know as one of these countries fondest lawyers that that is so important for people in circumstances like this, where they are victims of a crime that they cannot move on, they cannot get that closure until justice is done. So this is, we didn't start this campaign on a frolic. It's backed up by lots of scientific research that people need that closure before they can get on with their lives, understanding a course that you can never turn the clock back. But I am a lawyer by background. Helen, you've never heard of me because I've spent my career keeping governments and UK PLC out of trouble just for this sort of thing to get them to do the right thing when the worst happens. And people will forgive governments and corporations if they make mistakes, but they will not forgive them if they don't do the right thing. So eventually, after about a month, I did walk up the road and knocked on their door and asked if I could help. And that was two days after they had been told that Mrs. Secoulis had gone. And the police told the family they had less than 1% chance of having anyone held accountable. And Helen, are you would have done the same thing that me? I just took a double take. And I said, well, hang on a minute. That's not right. So I went away and did a little bit of research and within about three hours, I had figured out that she had, she did not have diplomatic immunity. That's a complete red herring in our case. And I told the family in a meeting the next day that 100% she will be coming back. And Helen, the people around me know me. I'm very headstrong. I'm laser-focused on achieving objectives when I set them. And I'm very large physically. There's not a lot that scares me. And I knew that we were going to reverse this. But what many people don't know is the amount of time and effort that I put into trying to engage with both the foreign office and the White House before all this went public to try and get it resolved. Because this is an amazing family. Just simple people. We have no interest in disrupting what work the Americans do here. But we got no response. There was no engagement at all. They were, it's now clear in some of the documentation that's coming out of the case that they wanted to sweep this under the carpet. And they didn't want any of this to come out. So I set them a deadline. That deadline came and went. And we then went public. So I have skinned the game, Helen. I've known Harry since he was two years old. And the reason that you see me so much are because I am unrelenting. And I am not going to cease this campaign until Mrs. Sikulis is back facing the justice system. Everybody needs a lawyer like you. I'm telling you, everybody needs a lawyer like you. Thank you so much. That's very kind. But I think one of the things about our case, unlike Mr. Assange's case and Mr. Lynch's case, of course, this is a perfectly simple case of a tragic road traffic collision. And she's admitted her culpability. So I think that's one of the things that resonates with people up and down this country that it cannot be right for a 19-year-old innocent lad from South North Hampshire to have his life ended. And then for the person who's admitted her involvement in it, just getting up and walking away and expecting the family to just shrug their shoulders and go, oh, well, one of those things lets all move on. Helen, it's just not going to happen. But it's absolutely clear that we couldn't have done this without the free press. So we must celebrate them because I know we all criticize them, but without the free press, those of us who are not in the establishment, like you and David, we have nothing. We have no voice. And with the support of the people. And that's the one thing that I've realized that politicians do not like is public disapproval. And as you've seen over the last few months, there are people up and down the country who are just looking at this and saying, well, hang on a minute, you know, actually you people there in parliament are there to serve us, not the other way around. And if you're not doing the right thing for our 19-year-old children, there's something brutal, you know, just something brutal about it and basically wrong. I don't think you need to be a lawyer to understand that. Rad, you took up the case. You started off doing things behind the scenes, trying to get the foreign office and the White House to recognize that some form of public due process was essential, justice needs to be in the public arena. And so you were actually acting in many ways as a lawyer for the family. I'd love you to tell the story about what happened when you went to the United States and you sought to speak to the president. Sure, thank you. So we had a meeting. Once we went public, the next day we were summoned to the foreign office for a meeting with Dominic Robb and I looked in his eyes and to just pick up on something that David said a little while ago, I saw a man who I think was totally powerless to reverse this decision himself. He admitted to me that there was not a lot he could do. And he, you know, one of the things he said to me was look at the size of them compared to the size of us. So I know David is sort of approaching this with rosy colored glasses. I'm with you, Helen. And I think I want assurances before we go into any discussions that that relationship is reset. There is to be in my view, no discussion at the moment when the head of our foreign office is saying to us just as you've described so articulately, there is a huge imbalance in this relationship. And we stand no chance of resetting it until we, you know, we get things right. And hopefully the simplicity of the Harry Dunn case is going to be the game changer. I don't believe it's happened with Dr. Lynch. I don't believe it's happened with Julian Assange. But none of us are going to accept a 19 year old, you know, boy being killed on the road and the person walking away. So to just come to the White House, you know, once I realized that London couldn't help us, I knew we needed to head to Washington. And you know, sure enough, the day after we got there, you know, we got an invitation to the White House. And you know, it was, and I'm sure it will always be the most extraordinary experience of my entire life because I had the four parents with me who are just simple people. You know, dad's a maintenance man and mum works in a GP surgery. They are not used to moving in the corridors of power like you two are. And let alone, you know, being in the White House. So, you know, having been invited there, we weren't told what the reason for the visit was. I was part of the team that said that we shouldn't go because I knew full well that Donald Trump was not going to be doing anything for us. Whatever he had up his sleeve that day, he was going to be doing for himself. So I was on the side of not going but I was eventually persuaded that we should go because otherwise he was going to turn our refusal into an opportunity for himself. So listen, we were in New York, got on the train, down we went. And I mean, the first thing was that, you know, they tried to separate me from the family. You know, you go through various security phases and David, I don't know if you've ever been to the White House, but you know, you go through various security phases and at each point they kept trying to separate me from the family, you know, with various passport checks. Happily, we'd already agreed that if there was any attempt to do that, you know, the parents just wouldn't go through with it but it continued on several times, even when we got into the White House itself and started to approach the holding room of the Oval Office, it continued to happen. And look, you know, it's a very... They'd done their homework and they knew that they were dealing with a man who wasn't going to easily take over an answer. Of course, and now we all know what the plan was, which was to, you know, ambush these poor parents and spring the person who six weeks prior had sadly taken Harry's life. We were then told that Stephen Mnuchin, the Treasury Secretary was there, ready to write a check. I mean, Helen, it's just, you know, as you can tell, angers me to this day that the whole thing was just a bundled attempt to try and buy these parents off, to get the parents and Mrs. Coulis to hug it out and be done with it. And of course they didn't want me in there. The last person, if we're trying to resolve an issue, the last person you want in the room is the lawyer because you stood up for people's rights and that's what I did. Somehow I managed to find the courage to say no to it, even though I'm surrounded by these secret service people and you know, he himself is a very physically imposing guy and he's bigger than me. And when he wants something, he said it four times, I want you to meet her. And I said, no, that's not why we're here today. We're here to resolve a dispute. And if you want us to meet Mrs. Coulis, it'll be back in the UK where, you know, she meets the beat, hi, Charlotte. And Robert O'Brien, the national security advisor was there as well. And he started snapping and snarling at me saying she's never going back in it. Anyways, it descended into chaos at that point. Charlotte, you know, as you all know her, she's a very dignified woman. She engaged with the president then and explained to him why it would be inappropriate that they were all still in shock. And, you know, you don't meet them. You don't have that sort of meeting. Helena, you'll be able to explain your restorative justice system better than I can, but it's a good idea, but you do it at the end of a trial, don't you? And you do try and bring the parties together and good things can happen. You don't do it in the Oval Office with the world's media and about 50 people in the room with four parents who'd lost their son six weeks earlier. Yeah, no. You were absolutely right. And they were lucky to have you by their side, really. Thank you, so sorry, go ahead. No, no, no, please. Because I will draw in those who have been watching this discussion to ask some questions and to hear from them. But where have you got to? What's the position at the moment? The position at the moment is I can, it's, listen, we've moved mountains and I can share with your viewers today that absolutely Anticulus will be coming back. There is no doubt in my mind, my greater concern is the scandal that's unfolding at the foreign office because they were the ones who effectively let her go when they shouldn't have. So we have issues now on both sides of the Atlantic. We've met with the foreign secretary four times. He hasn't been honest with us and it's now all the documentation is now coming out. I'm afraid this has been a huge mess, Helena, and the parents to this day are suffering unimaginably. Justice is going to be done for Harry. Our greatest wish is that learning comes from this. And as Charlotte asked me, just make sure that this never happens again. So everything is going our way, I'm happy to say. Okay, well, that's great to hear. I'm going to now turn this over to some of the questions that have come through from those who are sort of taking part in this webinar. One of the first ones comes from Julie Hausman. And she's basically suggesting that, and she's written a long and detailed question, but it's basically suggesting that a lot of this is it relates to basically Russia, that what has really put the fire under the engine on the Assange case has been about feeling that Assange has knowledge about how he came into the possession of so much material, which then he put into the public domain and that he was in some way linked to the Russians in that undertaking. And there was collusion. And this is seen as being really a high level espionage issue. I mean, David, what do you make of all of that? I mean, do you think that the reason why they're going, they're hot on the tail of Assange, not prepared to take a reasonable view of this is because it does have political, they do think he knows too much. Well, I'm reaching a bit in my memory, Helen, but I thought an American court actually found against that allegation that he had, as it were, contacts with the Russians. And I also think they found against a couple of the other allegations in terms of what was legal or not to handle. But it may well have been early on that the Americans thought that Assange was related to Russia. That's entirely possible. And you can imagine that the Trump administration would be hypersensitive about anything involved in Russia for, again, given all the allegations against them. But I think it got to be bigger than that. It got to be called Celebra. He and Chelsea Manning on the other side, I mean, Chelsea Manning now, is it she's serving life? I can't remember the outcome of the trial, but it's certainly still in prison. Chelsea Manning was released by the Obama administration. But it's currently in custody because she has been rear-arrested under grand jury provisions because there are matters they want Chelsea Manning to disclose in relation to Julian Assange. And Chelsea Manning's position is I have no further knowledge and can't assist anymore, but and is not answering any questions. So the detention of Chelsea Manning is currently under grand jury provisions, not as a result of a sentence, but a long sentence was passed on Chelsea Manning, but Clemency was successful. It does sound like she's being indefinitely detained at the moment, but by the by, as I say, I think this, it may well have had origins in that. I don't know enough of the inwardness of the case, but it's become a snowball. It's become a political snowball. It's acquired a standing all on its own. As you and I have seen in British politics, this happened time and again as well. And that's the problem. I mean, Assange is a symbol really of the American state's affront at having his secrets put out in the public domain. That's what it comes down to. And it's why I think of it as a political case because I think every argument that's been marshaled against it's fall and now, I mean, it was suggested that the release of information had led to deaths of American agents. That's now being disproved. It was asserted that he didn't redact the data. He did redact the data to the point of making some of it unintelligible and unreadable. It was actually came in the public domain because a journalist from a newspaper let the code access for his unredacted site out in the public domain so other people could get at it. So he's been blamed for a whole series of things which are painfully untrue, but the impetus behind the extradition request has not stopped, which tells you it wasn't to do with those things. It's about high politics and him being a symbol of what they see as an assault on the American state. But most of the rest of the world we see as legitimate journalists. Yes. I mean, one of the things that different commentators are coming up with is pointing out that it's highly unlikely that although America is absolutely committed to this business of doing deals, so that 96% of the people coming before the courts end up feeding guilty in order to get a lesser sentence, they're saying that there's going to be no offering of a deal to a sand. That's one of the things that is not going to happen in his case. Do you think that's probably true? I think that's not true. I think, as we discussed before, it would be heard in a judicial jurisdiction which would not be favorable to him. So the chance of a fair trial is not high. He's already seen as a bet noir in America. I don't think he gets much sympathetic support in the American press, even from the so-called liberal press. So I think the chance of a fair trial is pretty slim. Again, another criteria we need to think about when we're drafting a new treaty. You've got to set this up in a way that somebody will get a fair trial. And the Americans actually do have the option of choosing a jurisdiction, not to make it biased against somebody. Brian Vickery raises something interesting which is he points out that maybe, as with the European arrest warrant, where it was raised that the European arrest warrant was unfairly being used against the sand, it was reformed after its use against him had ended. And so they're raising the question of, will they wait until they get their hands on Julian Assange before they think about even visiting the idea of changing this extradition treaty? Well, Mr. Vickery may be right. I'm afraid his cynical analysis is not entirely out of the facts. But we've got to fight the case every search. Yeah. I mean, another suggestion has been made for you, Rad, which is that the Daily Mail should be, you should get the Daily Mail firmly on your side because it worked for Laurie Love and it worked for Gary McKinnon. So the advice to you is get the Daily Mail on your side. Have you got it on your side at the moment? Well, both the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday have been writing about us weekly for the last few weeks, even during the lockdown and it's incredible. They've actually done a lot of investigative work and they are 100% determined to help us get justice for Harry, no doubt about it. Well, Hamja Assange has been saying that that's the way to go. And I think Hamja Assange has had experiences with the system too. Can I say, Helen, I think Rad and the Dunn family have done a fantastic job. So I can't think of a newspaper that's not been supporting all of them. Yeah. I've read it in tutorials in The Times and Telegraph, The Guardian, The Mail, I mean, but pretty much all of them understand the natural justice of this. And many of them have written pieces where they've got people who suffered lost, relatives, sons, daughters, and fathers and have told how it's important to closure, to get justice. Justice is a part of closure and that sees the public imagination. That's why I think Rad's got a good job. Yes, I've just been receiving some messages saying that in fact, Chelsea Manning came out a couple of weeks ago on March the 12th because the grand jury was dismissed and it doesn't, I don't have information as to the reason for that, but it may be that it was running out of time or it may be that they thought they were getting nowhere, but Chelsea Manning is now released. So what are the next steps for you, Rad? I mean, you'll get lots of public support and help and following things in the past, that is useful. But it's useful here. It's not useful in the United States. How has this been covered by the American press, if at all? Well, it's obviously been difficult during the spread of the virus. There's very little bandwidth out there, but as I'm sure you and David would understand it, I'm sure you'd encouraged me to do, the way things get resolved ultimately is through dialogue and to this day, we maintain cordial relations with both the White House who I interact with on a weekly basis and the foreign office, even though we're in dispute with them. So, look, that's all we want is to help this family move on and then to be satisfied, and I'm sure David's got an interest in this as well, in Parliament and you, Helen, as well, is to put whatever we need to in place to make sure that we have a fairer system and that, let's let Harry Dunn have many legacies, but one of them should be that, actually, we get back, we get Washington and London to get back to decency and thinking about the people first. What were they thinking, both of them, in allowing anticruelists to walk away? I mean, it's just jaw dropping and I hope that after this has all blown over and anticruelists has been back and faced the justice system, that we all just get back to a bit of common sense and a bit of decency and then nothing would help the Dunn family move on, I think, better than that. That should be Harry's legacy, that just, come on, guys, do the right thing. Well, you know, I mean, as we know, the moment is not a great moment for moving lots of the things that we all are concerned and care about because COVID-19 has basically sucked up the oxygen and there's very little airtime for anything else. But I think, you know, the rule of law is absolutely, this is what my life and yours, and indeed, David's life's about because the rule of law is fundamental to the decent society. If you don't protect the rule of law, even when we're dealing with things that are to do with national security or where we're dealing with issues like terrorism or international power, if you don't have good processes and you make sure that the standards are kept, whoever it is that's on trial, you're in trouble. I mean, you're in trouble. Yeah, Helena, can I just say, I think one of the things that's become clear, and again, I've done my level best to not politicize this campaign. That's not what this is about, but I've had the great honor of meeting people from previous administrations in Washington, both Republican and Democrat, and I've met many serving people on Capitol Hill. All of them have said, this is both morally and legally indefensible, and it's just Trump being Trump. And we found out in the very early days that he had made this decision himself personally. Listen, I have no axe to grind with, you know, I'm an American, I live in the UK. I have no axe to grind against the American people, the State Department, but I'm afraid, I've got to call a state-of-state, but what we are dealing with here is a president who, you know, as you say, you know, there are clear processes to follow. We all know that he tends to not follow them. He's the person that, you know, is the issue here, not the United States of my view. Oh, and it doesn't get a sense that the rule of law figures high on his list of priorities and is deeply embedded in his value system. I mean, that's how it seemed to me. David might be much more sensitive politically, but he might be more reserved in his view. Well, let me tell you, since you invite me to, I'm not another great defender of Trump. The, if I've been an American, I've probably abstained from the last election, but the, I'm not so sure that Rad's right there because one of the problems here is you're dealing with one of the big bureaucracies, the CIA, who apparently employed Mr. Securus. Now, if that's the case, you find these agencies incredibly, I'd say hypersensitive about letting any of their officers get into anybody else's hands, let them learn appearing court. And that may well have featured them. So we don't know, how can we know? We don't know, but it may well have featured. Can I make one other point about the Dunn family in this? One of the most impressive things in this exercise has been they are plainly after closure, not revenge. And that's been very important, I think, in the moral standing of the argument. I think Mrs. Dunn, you're correct me if I'm wrong, Rad. I think Mrs. Dunn has said, they don't want to see Mr. Securus serve a custodial sentence. They just want to see the process of law take its course. And I think that stance is incredibly important to this because if you're to win, you've got to maintain that moral high ground. I mean, Helena, you and I know in our battles over decades on this stuff, if you maintain the moral high ground, sometimes that's a formidable advantage on your side. And I think that's important to the Dunn's as well. Yeah, I mean, I've always found listening to the mother. I mean, they really moved by the way that she conducts herself. She's clearly a very fine and decent person. But the pain, the loss is terrible. And to feel that the value of your child's life, somehow it isn't put on a par with so many others. That's shocking. And it's about a recognition of the human dignity and the human value to be attached to Harry's life. And that matters. And so I feel very strongly about the responsibility of the American state to hand over the person. Our system isn't like theirs. She isn't going to go to jail for 30 years. It's just not going to be like that. But for her to stand in the court and admit that she was responsible for the ending of her life and is an important thing for those parents to hear. And as you were describing, it's two sets of parents that the parents remain loving parents to the child. And the step parents feel as engaged with that boy, loved him too. And the loss is terrible. So I mean, the legal systems have an important role in acknowledging the humanity that underpins all this stuff. And so while we can talk about the law, we have to remember, I mean, Julian Assange now, you know, his partner and two small babies and he's got a grown up son and so on. People, there are consequences for other people around all of this. And so, you know, it is important that we remember all of that. And also I do think that although the American liberal press, you know, had their run-ins with Assange on certain fronts, I think that they too recognize that if it's too easy to take people who are publishing material and who don't want to divulge what their sources are, if they become at risk, then all media becomes at risk. And I think Rad was saying the importance of us having a free media, you know, media freedom underpins all rights. Your rights are meaningless if you don't know what the law is, if we aren't able to publish the wrongs that take place. I don't have public debate about all this. And so a free media is absolutely fundamental, like the rule of law to the decent society. You know, it's absolutely fundamental. Helen, can I just add just one more point? Because I thank you, David, you're absolutely right to mention the CIA and of course they are very sensitive about that and maybe rightly so. But again, I've met with many serving officers when I've been in Washington, including senior ones, there isn't a single person there who agrees with this decision that I've spoken to. They're all horrified and they firmly believe at least the ones that I've spoken to that justice has to be done. But coming on to the other point that you both raised, which is absolutely right, this is not about vengeance. This is just about doing what you, David, or you, Helen, or I would have to do. We had struck somebody on the road that night, which is just go through the process. And let's remember that Anne Secubus is innocent of any charge until she's proven otherwise. She's charged with causing death by dangerous driving. She's entitled to a fair trial and she'll get that. But just imagine the good that could come from this if common sense does prevail. And look, we all just, you know, just get back to that basic way of carrying on, which is just do the right thing afterwards. And I do hope that Charlotte and Anne Secubus can meet in a room at some point to reach out to each other and build a relationship and then to come out and show the world, just as you were just describing that, it's not about vengeance. It is about just doing the right thing and then maybe forgiving each other. I'm very hopeful that a lot of good is going to come from Harry's tragic loss. And that's the one thing that I hope that we can give these parents that, as I said, his death was not in vain. It's been pointed out to me that it's not the case that the grand jury had run out of time. Apparently you can be kept by the American system is always a mystery to me, some of it. But the grand jury thing, which was a part of our system hundreds of years ago, where a jury is brought together to decide on charges is that apparently the announcement was they had been dissolved because it'd done its work, which may mean that there are even more charges awaiting for Julian Assange if he is indeed extradited to the United States of America. So it may be that there's even worse to come than what is being placed before the British courts and that they're using this as a lure. You get him out of the country and then you throw a whole set of other charges at him too. Then I'm being asked by Suzanne Nair, what about the lack of the political offence exception clause in the Extradition Act versus the Extradition Treaty? Do you want to deal with that, David? Yes, I think it's a good question. I suspect it's because when it came about, when the actual treaty was being crafted, they were worried that what was normally the reason for the treaty, terrorism offenses, could somehow become reclassified as political offenses. I mean, you may remember during the Irish Troubles, we couldn't get IRA terrorists deported or extradited from some countries, Ireland and others because it was seen as a political offense a battle between the state. And I suspect that's why. But that's not an excuse. And my view is there should be. And one of the opt-outs that should exist in it is for political offenses because I think that would probably, not entirely sure, probably get Assange off the hook in terms of the current case. And certainly should be there because particularly when dealing with a state like America, I mean, so much of their legal system, as I say, is politicized from its membership through the way it operates. And we should be very, very wary of that. Whenever you create an extradition treaty, what the presumption is underneath it is there's some equality of justice between the country of the individual is leaving and the country of the individual is going to. And if that's not true, you have to correct for it. And one way you have to correct for it is to ensure that political charge is not brought. I've got to, I've had, I've had Julia Hausman saying that I hadn't understood her question. And I'm sure I hadn't, but if you write a question which is 18 sentences, 18 lines long, then you have to read it while I'm also hearing the session. I'm afraid that's your question is the problem. And so you'll have to learn from this that that's not the best way of making an intervention. But one of the questions here is from reports from the Westminster Magistrates Court, the magistrate is shockingly biased in our system when it comes to the case of Julian Assange. And it's so basically, there's a question in here about whether the due process is actually happening inside the British system too. We're being highly critical of America, but what about our own backyard? Well, my one observation on that is, I don't think this is a case that should be heard in the Magistrates Court. It's too serious. When you are talking effectively about somebody who might face a life sentence when he goes to another country, this should not be being decided by a single magistrate. You should be deciding by a panel of judges, not even one judge, frankly. So I think that's another weakness in the system. I can't comment on the Westminster Magistrate. I've no idea, but you know, because I wasn't there. But I do think the system is decided at far too low a level. But I do know that around the world, legal organisations have objected to the fact that Julian Assange is not having proper access to his papers in prison. It's like you're talking about in these fraud cases where there's financial cases, where there's a ton of paperwork and it's almost impossible inside a prison to be able to access them in a way that is going to help you prepare for your case. So he's having difficulty accessing that. But also the fact that it turns out that even when he was inside the Ecuadorian Embassy, his lawyers, his meetings with his lawyers were being bugged and so on. So there seems to have been a lot of inappropriate action around whether there is due process and whether it's happening in a way that this judge is kind of really keeping control of and somehow the complaints that are being made by legal organisations, by bar associations and so on is quite serious that Assange is not getting a fair hearing at the moment because of his ill health and so on. Anyway, Rad, I thought you wanted to come in on something there. Did you? No, no, no. Well, can I, in that case, can I pick up on that due process point? One of the things which the Americans are better than us on is a respect, at least a public view of respect for due process. Mostly the British public doesn't pay much attention to the process. They care about the outcome. They believe in the system, but they don't really worry about the details of it. The Americans, because it's such a legalistic society, understand the importance of due process. And had the Westminster Magistrate's Court, if that's what it is, or the Belmarsh Magistrate's Court, have been an American court, due process would have been a very important by the argument. The fact he was bugged would have been important by the argument. The fact his legal privilege was interfered with, would have been a very important part of the argument. Here, somehow it doesn't seem to matter. And that is another fact. Well, I want to thank both of you for taking part in this discussion. It has been really a rich and useful one. And I think that a lot of people will have been informed. And I want to thank you both for being champions of the rule of law, of rights, and liberties. And I just want to say, you know, we've got to try and get the change to this extradition act. But there's some change that we have to ask for, even before that, which is that these particular cases are handled with greater justice. And so I pay tribute to you, Rad, Segar. I think that you're a remarkable man. If ever I'm in trouble, I'm coming to you and getting your advice out. Anyway, I would recommend them too. Anyway, but it's really been a very interesting discussion. Thank you both. And thank you for those who participated. But with question, I'm sorry that we're not all answered. Bye. All right.