Britain briefly suspends sending evidence to U.S. law enforcement, in move some see as a sign of fraying relationship

British authorities earlier this month told their American counterparts that they had suspended sending over all evidence in criminal cases because the United States still uses the death penalty — a move some American law enforcement officials feared might signal a fraying relationship over several politically charged matters, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The United Kingdom’s Central Authority delivered the message on June 4 as part of communications over a visa fraud case in which the United States wanted assistance, saying it had “paused transmission of all evidence to all countries that maintain the death penalty on their statute books.”

The message pointed to a March decision from the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court, which declared that it was unlawful for British authorities to have cooperated with the United States in a high-profile terrorism case without first being assured that the men would not face the death penalty.

“Unfortunately because the U.S. maintains the death penalty on its statute books, this decision affects you,” the Central Authority wrote in a message, the contents of which were read to The Washington Post. “The U.S. is not, however, the only country affected by this pause, and the UKCA is mindful of the impact the decision to pause transmission might have on some proceedings. … Our policy colleagues are working through the implications, and we hope to be in a position to reconsider the transmission to third countries in cases where the death penalty is not the maximum sentence possible in due course.”

A spokesperson for the British Home Office said in an email, “The UK continues to process and cooperate with Mutual Legal Assistance Requests,” suggesting that whatever pause there had been, it was now lifted, at least in some measure.

Two U.S. Justice Department officials said, though, that the timing — more than two months after the Supreme Court decision was issued — was curious, and they worried about a possible ulterior motive.

The United States and the United Kingdom are mired in a number of politically charged legal cases in which each is seeking the other’s help — to little avail. Most notably, in April, the Justice Department made a formal, Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request to speak with Britain’s Prince Andrew as part of its investigation into the sexual abuse of minors by now-deceased multimillionaire Jeffrey Epstein, the two Justice Department officials said.

Andrew has said he is willing to cooperate. But U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman, whose office in Manhattan is handling the Epstein investigation, has publicly disputed that, declaring at a March news conference that the prince had instead “shut the door” on helping.

A senior Justice Department official — speaking on the condition of anonymity like others in this story because of the matter’s political and legal sensitivity — said some feared the U.K.’s decision to broadly pause transmitting of evidence in response to Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty requests might be connected to the dispute over the prince. A Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, also known by the acronym MLAT, governs how countries share information and cooperate in law enforcement matters.

British officials, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, disputed that the pause was connected to the recent dust-up over Andrew, saying it was instead because of the Supreme Court ruling in March and concerns over the death penalty in the United States.

A third senior Justice Department official said that in the period since the ruling, the Justice Department and the British Home Office “have been in discussions regarding the data protection implications of that decision. Any temporary pause in mutual legal assistance must be understood in that context.”

The public squabbling over Andrew significantly intensified this week. After the Sun newspaper and others reported on the Justice Department’s MLAT request for his cooperation, the law firm representing Andrew, Blackfords LLP, issued a statement taking aim at Berman for his public statements. The firm claimed that the prince had “on at least three occasions this year offered his assistance as a witness to the DOJ.”

source:washingtonpost