text:
The Practitioner's Guide to Global Investigations - Seventh Edition
Individuals in Cross-Border Investigations or Proceedings: The UK Perspective
Richard Sallybanks, Anoushka Warlow and Greta Barkle
BCL Solicitors LLP
In any cross-border investigation, invariably suspects will be located in different jurisdictions or subject to investigations by authorities from different jurisdictions, or both.
This chapter looks at the key issues that can arise when acting for an individual present in the United Kingdom who is subject to criminal investigation or proceedings in one or more overseas jurisdictions, or who is facing parallel proceedings here and abroad.[2]
40.2 Cross-border co-operation
The United Kingdom might co-operate with overseas agencies or regulators in various ways when investigating or prosecuting an individual, ranging from informal 'intelligence sharing' to mutual legal assistance (MLA). The main domestic legislation governing MLA in the United Kingdom is the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (CICA), Part 1 of which deals with criminal cases.
The United Kingdom is party to a number of bilateral and multilateral MLA treaties. While it is not necessary for an MLA treaty to exist between the relevant countries for a request to be made under CICA, requests are more likely to be successful where a treaty basis exists. Co-operation with EU Member States was changed by the United Kingdom's exiting of the European Union. On 24 December 2020, the United Kingdom and the European Union signed the UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement (TCA), which includes specific provisions on co-operation and MLA, and facilitates the application between EU Member States and the United Kingdom of certain previous MLA treaties and conventions.[3] While the TCA ensures there remains a strong co-operative relationship, certain investigative tools, such as European investigation orders,[4] can no longer be used.[5]
MLA requests are usually made to the UK Central Authority (UKCA)[6] through a formal international letter of request. In March 2022 the UK Home Office updated its detailed guidance on how foreign authorities can make such requests.[7] MLA requests will only be considered appropriate when the request is for evidence (and not intelligence).[8]
A formal MLA request is not required where overseas police and other law enforcement agencies request assistance directly from their UK counterparts. A number of UK agencies[9] can receive direct requests, and often this form of co-operation (also known as mutual administrative assistance) is governed by data sharing agreements or memoranda of understanding.
In some instances, cross-border co-operation may extend to the establishment of a joint investigation team (JIT) between investigating agencies in more than one country.[10] Creating a JIT is another way information or evidence can be shared without the need for MLA.
40.3 Practical issues
40.3.1 Asset freezing and restraint
During a cross-border investigation, an overseas authority may use law enforcement co-operation to identify and trace an individual's assets in the United Kingdom[11] and seek to freeze or restrain those assets. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005 (the 2005 Order) sets out the provisions for the United Kingdom to respond to and co-operate with other countries in freezing and confiscating assets.[12] Under section 444(1)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA), property in the United Kingdom can be frozen in accordance with an external request relating to proceedings for the recovery of criminal proceeds.[13]
In the first instance, external requests will be addressed to the Secretary of State for the Home Department (SSHD) who will in turn refer the matter to the relevant UK authority.[14] The relevant authority will then apply to the Crown Court for the assets to be restrained. For the Court to give effect to an external request the property in England and Wales must be identified, a criminal investigation or proceedings relating to the relevant offence must have commenced in the requesting state and there must be reasonable cause to believe that the alleged offender has benefited from their criminal conduct.[15] Furthermore, under section 447(8) of POCA, the criminal conduct must meet the dual criminality requirement, in that it must also amount to an offence in the United Kingdom, or would do so if it occurred here.
Where the Court is satisfied that these conditions are met, it may make a restraint order prohibiting a person from dealing with the property identified in the external request, subject to certain exceptions.[16] A restraint order must be served on the suspect and any other person affected by it, and the Court will require confirmation that this has been done.
It is likely that any banks or financial institutions in the United Kingdom to which the individual is connected will be served with a copy of the restraint order.
40.3.2 Account monitoring orders
CICA implemented the 2001 Protocol to the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (the 2001 Protocol), which created obligations for participating countries to respond to requests from overseas authorities for assistance locating bank accounts or to provide banking information relating to criminal investigations.[17] The requirements of the 2001 Protocol now appear within Article 661 of the TCA in like terms. Account monitoring orders under CICA only apply to an investigation by a 'participating country' into serious criminal conduct.[18]
Account monitoring orders were first introduced in the United Kingdom under POCA. However, separate provisions were created under CICA to ensure that the United Kingdom could meet the wider requirements of the 2001 Protocol.
Where the SSHD receives a request from an overseas authority, they may direct a senior police officer, or arrange for a constable, to apply for an account monitoring order.[19] A judge can make an account monitoring order for up to 90 days where satisfied that there is an investigation into criminal conduct in the country in question and that the order is sought for the purposes of that investigation.[20] Applications can be made, without notice, to a judge in chambers.[21] The court may discharge or vary an account monitoring order, but not on an application by the account holder.[22]
An account monitoring order can also be requested under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime (External Investigations) Order 2014 for the purposes of a criminal investigation[23] or criminal proceedings.[24] The request must demonstrate reasonable grounds for believing that the account information requested is of substantial value to the overseas investigation, and that it is in the public interest for it to be provided.[25]
40.3.3 Confiscation and forfeiture
Under the 2005 Order, property within the United Kingdom may be subject to confiscation proceedings following the receipt of an external order.[26]
Upon receipt of an authenticated external order, the SSHD may refer it to the relevant UK authority[27] to process and make an application to the Crown Court.[28] The Court will give effect to an external order where certain conditions are met. Those conditions, set out at Article 21 of the 2005 Order, are that:
the external order was made following a conviction of the person named in the order, and no appeal is outstanding;
the external order is in force and there is no appeal outstanding;
giving effect to the order would not be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights[29] in respect of the individual concerned; and
the property is not subject to charges under the provisions set out in Article 21(6) of the 2005 Order.[30]
Where the Crown Court decides to give effect to an external order, it must register it and provide for notice of the registration to be given to any person affected by it, who may apply to vary the order so that it applies to different property.[31]
Under Article 26 of the 2005 Order, the amount ordered to be paid is due on the date notice is given to the affected person. The Crown Court has discretion to allow for more time to pay.
40.3.4 Interviews
An individual suspected of criminal activity who is resident or present in the United Kingdom and whom the UK authorities wish to question in connection with a domestic investigation will be interviewed 'under caution'. This is usually done voluntarily unless it is considered necessary to arrest the individual and there are legitimate reasons for doing so.[32] The interview will be conducted in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and the accompanying Code C. The suspect has a number of rights, including the right to have a UK lawyer present.[33]
The question of whether the interview is admissible in proceedings in any other jurisdiction will depend on the laws of that country. This means that, in cross-border investigations, serious consideration must be given before any interview in the United Kingdom as to whether a suspect's answers (or silence) may be admissible in any other investigating jurisdiction and, if so, the appropriate strategy to adopt.
When a suspect is resident in the United Kingdom, but is wanted for questioning by an overseas authority, the individual (or their legal advisers) may be approached with a request that the suspect travel to the requesting state for interview voluntarily.
In the absence of any such request, or if it is refused, the requesting authority can request via MLA that a statement be taken from the suspect on a voluntary basis. Alternatively, where the evidence needs to be taken on oath, or where the suspect refuses to co-operate, the request can be for the suspect to be compelled to attend court for questioning. Once before the court, the suspect can be questioned under oath, but retains the right against self-incrimination and may refuse to answer any question.[34]
If a suspect consents to giving the overseas authority a statement voluntarily, or answers questions in court, this is likely to be admissible in any future proceedings in the requesting jurisdiction (subject to the applicable local law). Again, the question of whether statements are also admissible in proceedings in any other jurisdiction will depend on local laws.
Where the requesting state seeks to obtain evidence from a witness who is not a suspect in an investigation, the same MLA procedures can be used.
However, if it is believed that the witness will be unwilling to assist other than by compulsion, and assuming that the investigation is into a serious or complex fraud, or bribery or corruption, of the type that would fall under the remit of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), an MLA request can be made to direct the SFO to obtain such evidence from the individual using its compulsory section 2 powers.[35] Answers obtained via this process (noting that a failure to comply with a compulsory power such as section 2 can amount to a separate criminal offence) are not generally admissible as evidence against the interviewee in criminal proceedings,[36] although they will inform the investigation.
Before granting the request, the requesting authority will be expected to provide an undertaking that any statement, or the contents of any interview, given by an individual pursuant to a compulsory section 2 notice will not be used in evidence against that person in any subsequent prosecution.[37]
Practitioners should also consider the potential use by other jurisdictions of information provided in the United Kingdom by witnesses pursuant to authorities' compulsory powers; for example, the use of compelled testimony, obtained in the United Kingdom, in criminal proceedings in the United States would likely amount to a breach of an individual's privilege against self-incrimination.[38]
40.3.5 Search and seizure
Under section 16 of CICA, an overseas authority can request the search or seizure of property in the United Kingdom. However, a request will not be granted automatically, even if a search warrant has been issued in the requesting country.
In the first instance, the UK authorities may choose to implement the request less invasively, such as by seeking the production of documents. Where the UK authorities accede to a request for a search warrant, an application must be made to the court for it to be granted.
Under section 17 of CICA, a court in England and Wales may only issue a warrant at the request of an overseas authority if satisfied that (1) criminal proceedings have been instituted, or a person has been arrested during the course of a criminal investigation, outside the United Kingdom, (2) the offence at issue would constitute an indictable offence in England or Wales, and (3) there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the premises in question are occupied or controlled by that person and contain evidence relating to the offence.[39]
An application for a search warrant must be supported by a written document, known as an information, setting out the factual basis on which the warrant is sought. Since search warrant applications are made ex parte, the officer making the application must furnish the court with the full facts at their disposal (including those that militate against the granting of a warrant).[40] The company or individual affected by the search warrant may later request, and is entitled to see, a copy of the documents presented to the Crown Court in support of the warrant application.
Where a warrant is granted, officers from the executing UK authority may enter the property to seize and retain the evidence particularised in the warrant. All search warrants executed in the United Kingdom must comply with the requirements of PACE and the accompanying Code B.[41] This includes a requirement to provide the occupier of the premises with a copy of the warrant. Failure to comply with the relevant requirements may leave the warrant vulnerable to challenge by way of judicial review.
Where evidence is seized under CICA, either the original or a copy will be sent via the UKCA to the requesting territory.[42] However, further considerations will apply in the event that the material seized is subject to legal professional privilege, constitutes 'special procedure material' or has been seized pursuant to section 50 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which allows for the removal of property where it is not reasonably practicable to complete a process of examination, searching or separation at the scene.[43]
An individual may, however, hold privileged material belonging not only to themselves, but also to their current or former employer (such as legal advice given to the company or material generated during an internal investigation).[44] If such material is seized, the company benefiting from the privilege may wish to make representations to the authority receiving the material.
40.3.6 Production of documents
In cross-border investigations involving financial crime, the most common mechanism to compel individuals to provide information, whether by answering questions in interview or by producing documents, is through the SFO's powers under section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987.[45]
Section 2 powers do not have extraterritorial effect and cannot be used to compel a foreign company that does not carry on business in the United Kingdom or have a UK presence to produce documents held outside the country.[46] However, the position in respect of documents held overseas may be different where the recipient of a section 2 notice is a UK-registered company or a foreign company with a presence in the United Kingdom or carrying on business in the United Kingdom, or where an individual's conduct abroad is concerned. Consideration should be given early in any cross-border investigation to what documents an individual possesses (whether in hard copy or electronically) and where they are held.
Alternatively, a production order may be sought which, much like a search warrant, must be granted by a court in England and Wales pursuant to an application made by the UK authorities on behalf of the requesting state.[47]
In addition, under section 20 of CICA, a participating country may request a freezing order in relation to evidence (this does not extend to property or money). Once evidence has been frozen it must be retained until instructions have been received to transfer that evidence to the requesting state, or to release it.[48]
Under the Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019, 'appropriate officers'[49] can apply to the Crown Court for an overseas production order[50] requiring a person based overseas in a country that is party to, or participates in, a 'designated international co-operation arrangement' to produce or give access to 'electronic data'[51] in his or her possession or control regardless of where it is stored. On 3 October 2019, the United Kingdom signed its first designated agreement with the United States pursuant to the US Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act 2018.[52] The agreement came into force on 3 October 2022. This is the only country with whom the United Kingdom has signed a designated international co-operation agreement.
40.4 Extradition
In cross-border criminal investigations, suspects are often resident outside the jurisdiction conducting the investigation.[53] As such, a critical question will be whether, and how, they may be subjected to extradition. The answer lies in the legislation of, and arrangements between, the requesting and requested states.
Extradition between the United Kingdom and EU Member States is governed by Title VII to Part 3 of the TCA[54] following the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union, and the United Kingdom's obligations are implemented through the Extradition Act 2003 (the 2003 Act) as amended. The relevant 'surrender' provisions of the TCA replace the previous European Arrest Warrant (EAW) Framework but, for anyone arrested (or provisionally arrested) in the United Kingdom before 11pm on 31 December 2020 pursuant to an EAW, the extradition process will continue to follow the previous EAW Framework and the 2003 Act in its unamended form.[55] If an EAW was issued before 1 January 2021 but the requested person was not arrested before this date, the EAW will be treated as a Part 1 warrant as detailed below.
The 2003 Act is divided into two parts. Part 1 applies to requests made by 'category 1 territories' (EU Member States and Gibraltar) through the TCA procedure.[56] Part 2 applies to requests made by 'category 2 territories', namely those other countries with which the United Kingdom has extradition relations.[57]
40.4.1 Extradition from the UK – category 1 territories
Title VII to Part 3 of the TCA largely mirrors the EAW Framework and, therefore, Part 1 of the 2003 Act remains a fast-track procedure allowing the requesting state to secure the return of a requested person quickly and effectively.
The National Crime Agency certifies a Part 1 warrant on receipt from the requesting state before liaising with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for advice on the validity and content of the request.
The requesting state must identify the offence or offences that the requested person is accused of committing and confirm that the Part 1 warrant is issued with a view to his or her arrest and extradition for the purpose of prosecution or, where the requested person has been convicted, for the purpose of being sentenced or to serve a sentence already passed. The information must include details such as the requested person's identity and particulars of the alleged offence or conviction. Failure to comply with these requirements invalidates the Part 1 warrant.[58]
Following the certification of the Part 1 warrant, it may be executed and the requested person arrested[59] (provisional arrest may also be carried out if there are reasonable grounds for believing a Part 1 warrant has been or will be issued by a competent authority).[60]
On arrest, the individual will initially be taken to a police station and held there under the provisions of PACE and the accompanying Code C. The individual has various rights, including the right to have someone informed of the arrest, the right to free independent legal advice and the right to consult privately with a solicitor. A formal custody record will be opened, but the individual will not be interviewed as it is not the role of the police to investigate the offence. However, given the significance of identification to the extradition process, fingerprints, non-intimate samples and photographs may be obtained in accordance with PACE Code D.[61]
Following the requested person's arrest and initial detention, they must be brought before a court[62] 'as soon as practicable' for an initial hearing and fixing of the extradition hearing within the next 21 days.[63] Depending on the day and time of the arrest, this requirement can mean that the individual spends only hours in police detention before being brought before the court. If the individual is arrested at the weekend, however, it can mean spending up to two nights in police custody.
At the extradition hearing, the judge must be satisfied that the alleged conduct constitutes an extraditable offence[64] and that no bar to extradition applies. If the judge orders extradition, and in the absence of any appeal, the requested person must be extradited within 10 days of the order, or later if agreed with the requesting state.[65]
Either party may appeal the judge's decision to the High Court.[66] Thereafter, an appeal may be made to the Supreme Court if the matter concerns a point of law of general public importance.[67]
Part 2 of the 2003 Act provides for the extradition to those territories not in category 1 with which the United Kingdom has bilateral or multilateral extradition treaties.[68] These territories are usually required to provide prima facie evidence of the case against the requested person unless they are signatories to the European Convention on Extradition,[69] or the United States, New Zealand, Australia or Canada.
If a requested person's extradition is sought so that the person stands trial, the request must be certified by the SSHD as being valid before being sent to the appropriate judge.[70] The judge then considers whether there are reasonable grounds to issue an arrest warrant,[71] which include that the evidence produced would justify the issue of a warrant for the individual's arrest if it were a domestic case.[72]
Once an arrest warrant has been issued and executed, the requested person must be brought before the magistrates' court as soon as practicable.[73] Unless the requested person consents to extradition, the court will fix a date for the extradition hearing, usually within two months, and decide whether to grant bail.[74]
At the extradition hearing, the judge must first consider the sufficiency of the extradition request and supporting documentation. If the documents do not meet the requirements set out in section 78(2) of the 2003 Act, the judge must discharge the person whose extradition is sought.[75] Where the judge is satisfied that the requirements have been met, they will consider whether the person before the court is the requested person, the offences specified are extraditable and copies of the documents have been served on the person.[76] In cases where prima facie evidence must be provided, the judge must then decide if the evidence supporting the request is 'sufficient to make a case'.[77]
If the judge is satisfied that all the conditions have been met, and that no bars to extradition exist, the matter is referred to the SSHD for a decision whether to extradite. Representations may be made by the requested person to the SSHD for consideration.
The judge's decision to refer may be appealed within 14 days of the date of the decision and thereafter appeals may be lodged with the High Court or, if appropriate, the Supreme Court.
40.4.3 Extradition from the UK – other territories
For countries that are neither category 1 nor category 2 territories, section 194 of the 2003 Act allows the SSHD to certify that 'special extradition' arrangements have been made between the United Kingdom and that country for the extradition of a person. These special arrangements must comply with the 2003 Act's Part 2 procedures.
In addition, a territory party to an international convention to which the United Kingdom is also a party may, under section 193, be designated a territory to which Part 2 applies.[78]
40.4.4 Bars to extradition
Under the 2003 Act, a properly issued extradition request will be honoured, unless one of the bars to extradition applies.
Sections 11 and 79 of the 2003 Act set out specific bars to extradition for Part 1 and Part 2 requests, respectively. These include the rule against double jeopardy, extraneous considerations and the passage of time.
In addition to the specific bars, there are a number of general bars, as detailed below.
40.4.4.1 The human rights bar
Under sections 21, 21A (Part 1 cases) and 87 (Part 2 cases), the judge must determine 'whether extradition would be compatible with the requested person's Convention rights' within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998.[79] A request may be refused where it is shown that there are substantial grounds to believe that the requested person, if extradited, faces a 'real risk of exposure to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'[80] contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (for example, in relation to prison conditions in the requesting state); or that the interference with the private and family lives of the requested person, and members of his or her family, outweighs the public interest in extradition.[81] Arguments under Article 5 (the right to liberty and security)[82] and Article 6 (right to a fair trial)[83] of the ECHR can also be raised under the human rights bar.
40.4.4.2 The proportionality bar
This bar applies to Part 1 cases only.[84] When considering a request, the judge may consider the seriousness of the alleged conduct, the likely penalty to be imposed and whether there are alternatives to extradition.
40.4.4.3 The forum bar
The forum bar provides that extradition may be barred if it would not be in the interests of justice.[85] This will be considered where the nature of the criminal conduct means that the alleged offence could potentially be prosecuted in more than one country, and is particularly relevant to parallel or cross-border investigations. It was introduced into the 2003 Act by the Crime and Courts Act 2013 as a result of concern, in particular in the context of extraditions to the United States, and has been in force as a bar to extradition since October 2013.
Extradition would not be in the interests of justice if the judge decides that a substantial measure of the criminal activity took place in the United Kingdom having regard to 'specified matters'. The specified matters include consideration of:
where most of the loss or harm occurred or was intended to occur;
the interests of any victims;
any belief of a prosecutor that the United Kingdom is not the most appropriate jurisdiction in which to prosecute;
desirability and practicability of all prosecutions relating to the extradition offence taking place in one jurisdiction; and
the requested person's connections with the United Kingdom.[86]
The forum bar has been successfully invoked on several occasions concerning extradition to the United States (Love, Scott, McDaid and Taylor)[87] but the court has more recently rejected a forum bar argument advanced in the high-profile extradition proceedings relating to Mike Lynch, who is sought for trial in the United States in relation to fraud charges.[88]
40.5 Settlement considerations
The scope for an individual to settle cross-border investigations or proceedings is in practice limited and will realistically arise either in circumstances where the individual can obtain an immunity from prosecution or where his or her co-operation in one jurisdiction (whether or not involving a guilty plea) effectively resolves the investigations in other jurisdictions.
Sections 71 to 75 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 set out the statutory framework in which an individual may enter into such an agreement with a UK prosecutor.[89]
Under section 71, a designated prosecutor[90] may grant a suspect immunity from prosecution subject to certain conditions which, if breached, will ordinarily result in the immunity being revoked. These conditions invariably require a suspect's full co-operation with the prosecuting authority in the United Kingdom (and, where applicable, with overseas authorities).
Whereas section 71 grants immunity from prosecution, section 73 requires an individual to plead guilty to the offence, but enables the court to take into consideration the assistance the individual has provided to the authorities. This will often result in a substantial reduction in sentence.[91] A section 73 agreement is often referred to as a 'co-operating defendant' agreement and, in practice, in cross-border investigations will require the individual to co-operate also with overseas authorities.
Unlike in other jurisdictions, a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) can only be concluded between the SFO or CPS[92] and a suspect corporate entity; there is no provision for an individual to enter into a DPA.[93] The use to which the SFO or CPS can put the information it obtains during the DPA negotiations against others, including individuals employed by the corporate entity, is unrestricted.[94] This means that an employee suspect is at risk of having his or her position compromised as a result of the employer's co-operation.[95]
If a corporate entity with which the client is connected enters into a DPA, the client may be named in the published statement of facts that underpins the DPA. A third party does not have to be notified that he or she may be so named and the terms of a DPA and the supporting statement of facts cannot be altered or modified once approved by the court.[96]
If there are existing or anticipated criminal proceedings against individuals, relevant names will be anonymised, or restrictions will be imposed on the publication of the statement of facts,[97] to avoid the risk of the DPA causing prejudice to those proceedings.
40.6 Reputational considerations
Throughout parallel or cross-border investigations or proceedings, those representing an individual must always consider the potential impact on the client's reputation. Matters are complicated where the individual may have a low profile in one jurisdiction, but be well known in another, or, despite having a low media profile, may have become embroiled in a highly public investigation.
Associated issues can arise where the individual is included in a due diligence database, such as World Check or World Compliance. Entry in these databases, which are largely based on open source (and sometimes unreliable) material, can have a profound effect on an individual's ability to access financial services, but representations can sometimes be made to seek to amend a client's profile.
As regards criminal investigations, the UK courts have affirmed that, as a starting point, a suspect should not be named by the press.[98] However, in the context of cross-border investigations, different jurisdictions will have different rules on publishing a suspect's identity such that an individual who avoids having their details published by the UK press may nevertheless find themselves named overseas. Furthermore, different considerations will apply where, for example, an individual is charged in a criminal investigation (as opposed to being merely under suspicion) or, in the context of Financial Conduct Authority proceedings, 'identified' in corporate decision notices.[99]
[1] Richard Sallybanks and Anoushka Warlow are partners, and Greta Barkle is an associate, at BCL Solicitors LLP. The authors would like to thank Evgeni Voznoi (trainee solicitor) for his assistance in updating this chapter.
[2] Whereas England and Wales have a common legal system, there are certain substantive and procedural differences in the Scottish and Northern Irish systems. This chapter focuses on the English and Welsh legal system.
[3] In particular, the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, the 1978 Additional Protocol to the European Mutual Assistance Convention and the 2001 Second Additional Protocol to the European Mutual Assistance Convention.
[4] A European investigation order is made by a judicial authority in one EU Member State to have specific investigative measures carried out in another. Its purpose is to facilitate and speed up assistance in criminal investigations provided between Member States.
[5] In addition, the United Kingdom no longer has full access to the Schengen Information System or the European Criminal Records Information System.
[6] The UKCA is the Home Office department responsible for receiving, acceding to and ensuring the execution of MLA requests in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is responsible for MLA requests in England, Wales and Northern Ireland relating to tax and fiscal customs matters. The Crown Office is responsible for MLA requests in Scotland, including devolved Scottish matters.
[7] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1069752/Request_for_MLA_in_criminal_matters_guidelines_2022.pdf.
[8] Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003, s.7(2).
[9] These are: the UK Liaison Bureau at Europol via the National Crime Agency (although the United Kingdom is no longer a member of Europol following its exiting of the European Union, ongoing co-operation with Europol is provided for within Title V of Part 3 of the UK–EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement); Interpol via the National Crime Agency; Home Office (including UK Border Force and Immigration); HMRC; Police Services; Financial Intelligence Units; and International Anti-Corruption Coordination Centre.
[10] A JIT can be formed under various international instruments as specified under s.88 of the Police Act 1996 (as amended by sections 103 and 104 of the Police Reform Act 2002) and the International Joint Investigation Teams (International Agreements) (EU Exit) Order 2019/274.
[11] Any information concerning asset tracing should be sought through police co-operation and financial intelligence units before an MLA request is made. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005, at Articles 202 to 207, governs how property or sums of money specified in external orders may be traced and recovered.
[12] The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005 is made in exercise of the powers conferred under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, ss.444 and 459(2).
[13] An external request is a request by an overseas authority to prohibit dealing with property identified in the request: Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s.447(1).
[14] Requests will be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions or, in respect of offences involving serious or complex fraud or bribery, the Director of the Serious Fraud Office: Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005, Article 6.
[15] Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005, Article 7.
[16] ibid., Article 8.
[17] Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003, ss.32 to 36.
[18] Participating countries for this purpose include Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United States.
[19] An account monitoring order is made by a judge to enable transactions on a particular account to be monitored for a specified period: Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003, s.35.
[20] Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003, s.36.
[23] Provided that the investigation falls within a confiscation investigation or a civil recovery investigation.
[24] Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, Part 8.
[25] Proceeds of Crime (External Investigations) Order 2014, Article 30.
[26] An external order is an order for the recovery of specified property or a specified sum of money made by an overseas court where property is found, or believed to have been obtained, as a result of, or in connection with, criminal conduct: Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, s.447(2).
[27] Requests will be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, or, in respect of offences involving serious or complex fraud or bribery, the Director of the Serious Fraud Office: Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005, Article 18.
[28] ibid., Article 20.
[29] The United Kingdom's ongoing commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights is set out in the UK–EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement, Article 524.
[30] The fourth condition is that the specified property must not be subject to a charge under: Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, s.9; Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.78; Criminal Justice (Confiscation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, Article 14; Drug Trafficking Act 1994, s.27; or Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996, Article 32.
[31] Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (External Requests and Orders) Order 2005, Article 22.
[32] Such as a reasonable belief that, unless placed under arrest, the suspect will abscond from the jurisdiction or will attempt to improperly interfere with the investigation: Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s.24 and Code G.
[33] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Code C, para. 6.
[34] A person cannot be compelled to give any evidence before a court that they could not be compelled to give in criminal proceedings in the United Kingdom or in criminal proceedings in the requesting state: Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003, Schedule 1, para. 5.
[35] Criminal Justice Act 1987, s.2. The Financial Conduct Authority has a similar power under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, s.171.
[36] Answers given in compelled interviews will, however, be admissible against the interviewee in most types of non-criminal proceedings.
[37] Saunders v. The United Kingdom [1996] ECHR 65, para. 68 in particular.
[38] United States v. Allen No. 16-898 (2d Cir. 2017).
[39] Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003, s.17(3).
[40] R (Energy Financing Team) v. Bow Street Magistrates' Court [2006] 1 WLR 1317.
[41] Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s.15(6) specifies what a warrant should contain.
[42] Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003, s.9.
[43] Special procedure material includes journalistic material, or material acquired or created in the course of any trade, business, profession or other occupation, which is held subject to a duty of confidentiality: Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s.14.
[44] The decision in The Director of the Serious Fraud Office v. Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation [2018] EWCA Civ 2006 clarified the scope of material that might arguably be subject to legal professional privilege.
[45] Equivalent powers exist under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Part XI in respect of Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) investigations and Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, s.62 in respect of National Crime Agency, HMRC and police investigations into 'specified offences'.
[46] R (KBR Inc) v. Serious Fraud Office [2021] 2 WLR 335.
[47] The relevant statutory test for the granting of a production order is set out within Schedule 1 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
[49] The 'appropriate officers' include a constable, an officer of HMRC, a member of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and a person appointed by the Financial Conduct Authority: Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019, s.2(1)(a).
[50] The requirements of which the Crown Court judge must be satisfied before granting an overseas production order are set out in the Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019, s.4.
[51] 'Electronic data' is broadly defined within the Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019 as 'any data stored electronically', although Overseas Production Orders cannot require the production of material that is protected by legal professional privilege, or personal confidential records (s.3). Further, the agreement reached between the United Kingdom and United States limits the use of overseas production orders to those sought against 'communication service providers', defined in the agreement as an entity (or persons processing data on its behalf) providing certain services to the public, for example, big technology and social media companies providing a public platform for communications.
[52] Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America on Access to Electronic Data for the Purpose of Countering Serious Crime, USA No. 6 (2019).
[53] The focus of this chapter is on extradition from the United Kingdom. However, individuals wanted by overseas authorities may be the subject of an Interpol red notice. Red notices can be issued on the basis that the individual is sought for prosecution or to serve a sentence. Once issued, a red notice alerts police and border officials around the world, and therefore affected individuals may encounter difficulties when travelling internationally, even if they are not subject to an investigation or arrest warrant in the jurisdiction they are travelling from or to. For more information, see https://www.interpol.int/INTERPOL-expertise/Notices/Red-Notices. Additionally, as a result of the Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020, the mere issuance of a red notice by Interpol at the request of Australia, Canada, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Switzerland and the United States is now sufficient to warrant the arrest of the concerned individual in the United Kingdom.
[54] Implemented domestically by the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020, the UK–EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement sets out the United Kingdom's extradition arrangements with the 27 EU Member States following the United Kingdom's departure from the previous European Arrest Warrant Framework.
[55] Polakowski v. Westminster [2021] EWHC 53 (Admin).
[56] Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 1 Territories) Order (SI 2003/3333), as amended.
[57] Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order (SI 2003/3334).
[58] Extradition Act 2003, s.2.
[59] ibid., s.3.
[60] ibid., s.5. A person subject to provisional arrest must be brought before the appropriate judge within 48 hours and an application for discharge must be granted if a certified warrant is not produced within that time frame: ibid., s.6.
[61] ibid., ss.166 to 168.
[62] In England and Wales, cases are heard at Westminster Magistrates' Court.
[63] Extradition Act 2003, ss.4 and 8.
[64] ibid., ss.64 and 65.
[65] ibid., s.35.
[66] ibid., ss.26 to 29.
[68] A list of category 2 territories is provided at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extradition-processes-and-review.
[69] https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/024/signatures?module=signatures-by-treaty&treatynum=024.
[70] Extradition Act 2003, ss.69 and 70.
[72] ibid., ss. 71, 137 and 138.
[74] A defendant in extradition proceedings has the right to bail unless alleged to be unlawfully at large after a conviction in the requesting territory: Extradition Act 2003, s.198. However, the usual grounds for refusing bail under the Bail Act 1976 apply together with an additional ground of refusal where the conduct constituting the extradition offence is an offence under UK law and appears to have been committed while the defendant was on bail.
[75] Extradition Act 2003, s.78.
[77] ibid., s.84(1). This requires the judge to have regard to all the admissible evidence before the court, including evidence called by the requested person, to determine whether the judge is satisfied that there is evidence upon which the requested person could be convicted at a 'summary trial of an information' against the person: Devani v. Republic of Kenya [2015] EWHC 3535 (Admin).
[78] The Extradition Act 2003 (Parties to International Conventions) Order 2005 provides that a state will only be designated a category 2 territory in this way in relation to conduct to which the convention applies (e.g., drug trafficking offences in contravention of the UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances).
[79] Extradition Act 2003: ss.21(1) and 21A(1)(a) (Part 1 cases) and s.87(1) (Part 2 cases).
[80] Soering v. United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439.
[81] HH v. Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa (2012) 3 WLR 90 summarised the conclusions of Baroness Hale regarding case law interpreting Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
[82] Shankaran v. India (2014) EWHC 957 (Admin).
[83] Vincent Brown aka Vincent Bajinja et al. v. The Government of Rwanda, The Secretary of State for the Home Department (2009) EWHC 770 (Admin).
[84] Extradition Act 2003, s.21A.
[85] ibid., s.19B (Part 1 cases) and s.83A (Part 2 cases).
[86] ibid., s.19B(3) (Part 1 cases) and s.83A(3) (Part 2 cases).
[87] Love v. Government of the United States and another [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin), Scott v. Government of the United States of America [2018] EWHC 2021 (Admin), United States v. McDaid [2020] EWHC 1527 (Admin) and Government of the United States of America v. Taylor.
[88] It is understood that this decision may be subject to appeal.
[89] In this context, 'the United Kingdom' refers to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
[90] Defined by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, s.71(4), as including a prosecutor from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), SFO, FCA, Prudential Regulatory Authority and the Director of Public Prosecutions of Northern Ireland.
[91] R v. Dougall [2010] EWCA Crim 1048.
[92] The SFO and the CPS are currently the only authorities authorised to enter into DPAs: Crime and Courts Act 2013, Schedule 17, para. 3(1).
[93] Crime and Courts Act 2013, Schedule 17, para. 4(1).
[94] ibid., Schedule 17, para. 13(6).
[95] In trying to put itself into a position where it can reach a DPA, the corporate entity will be anxious to demonstrate its co-operation with the concerned authority. Co-operation is a public interest factor militating against prosecution under the joint SFO and CPS Code of Practice: DPA Code of Practice, para. 2.8.2(i), Crime and Courts Act 2013.
[96] SFO v. Tesco Stores Limited [2019] EW Misc 1 (Crown C), para. 4.
[97] For example, the DPA in SFO v. Sarclad Limited [2016] Lloyd's Rep FC 509 (formerly referred to as SFO v. XYZ Ltd).
[98] Richard v. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) & Anor [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch), paras. 248–51; and ZXC v. Bloomberg [2020] EWCA Civ 611, paras. 81–84.
[99] Financial Conduct Authority v. Macris [2017] UKSC 19.
Richard Sallybanks
Anoushka Warlow
Greta Barkle
Judith Seddon, Eleanor Davison, Christopher J Morvillo, Luke Tolaini, Celeste Koeleveld, F Joseph Warin and Winston Y Chan
Dechert LLP, Fountain Court Chambers, Clifford Chance and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
Part I: Global Investigations in the United Kingdom and the United States
Dechert LLP, Fountain Court Chambers, Clifford Chance and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
The Evolution of Risk Management in Global Investigations
William H Devaney, Joanna Ludlam, Mark Banks and Aleesha Fowler
Self-Reporting to the Authorities and Other Disclosure Obligations: The UK Perspective
Judith Seddon and Andris Ivanovs
Self-Reporting to the Authorities and Other Disclosure Obligations: The US Perspective
F Joseph Warin, Winston Y Chan, Chris Jones and Duncan Taylor
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
Whistleblowers: The UK Perspective
Alison Wilson, Sinead Casey, Elly Proudlock and Nick Marshall
Whistleblowers: The US Perspective
Daniel Silver and Benjamin Berringer
Clifford Chance
Beginning an Internal Investigation: The UK Perspective
Simon Airey and James Dobias
McDermott Will & Emery UK LLP
Beginning an Internal Investigation: The US Perspective
Bruce E Yannett and David Sarratt
Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Directors' Duties: The UK Perspective
Nichola Peters, Michelle de Kluyver and Jaya Gupta
Directors' Duties: The US Perspective
Avi Weitzman, John Nowak, Jena Sold and Amanda Pober
Paul Hastings LLP
Stuart Alford KC, Serrin A Turner, Gail E Crawford, Hayley Pizzey, Mair Williams and Matthew Valenti
Witness Interviews in Internal Investigations: The UK Perspective
Caroline Day and Louise Hodges
Kingsley Napley
Witness Interviews in Internal Investigations: The US Perspective
John Nathanson, Katherine Stoller and Cáitrín McKiernan
Shearman & Sterling LLP
Forensic Accounting Skills
Glenn Pomerantz and Paul Peterson
BDO LLP
Co-operating with the Authorities: The UK Perspective
Matthew Bruce, Ali Kirby-Harris, Ben Morgan and Ali Sallaway
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP
Co-operating with the Authorities: The US Perspective
John D Buretta and Megan Y Lew
Cravath Swaine & Moore
Production of Information to the Authorities
Caroline Black, Clare Putnam Pozos, Chloe Binding and Carla Graff
Privilege: The UK Perspective
Tamara Oppenheimer KC, Rebecca Loveridge and Samuel Rabinowitz
Fountain Court Chambers
Privilege: The US Perspective
Richard M Strassberg and Meghan K Spillane
Negotiating Global Settlements: The UK Perspective
Nicholas Purnell KC, Brian Spiro, Jessica Chappatte and Eamon McCarthy-Keen
Negotiating Global Settlements: The US Perspective
Nicolas Bourtin
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Parallel Civil Litigation: The UK Perspective
Nichola Peters and Michelle de Kluyver
Parallel Civil Litigation: The US Perspective
Sam Amir Toossi and Farhad Alavi
Akrivis Law Group, PLLC
Monitorships
Robin Barclay KC, Nico Leslie, Christopher J Morvillo, Celeste Koeleveld, Meredith George and Benjamin Berringer
Fountain Court Chambers and Clifford Chance
Fines, Disgorgement, Injunctions, Debarment: The UK Perspective
Tom Epps, Andrew Love, Julia Maskell and Benjamin Sharrock
Cooley LLP
Fines, Disgorgement, Injunctions, Debarment: The US Perspective
Matthew Kutcher, Alexandra Eber, Matt K Nguyen, Wazhma Sadat and Kimberley Bishop
Extraterritoriality: The UK Perspective
Jessica Lee and Chloë Kealey
Brown Rudnick LLP
Extraterritoriality: The US Perspective
James P Loonam and Ryan J Andreoli
Sanctions: The UK Perspective
Rita Mitchell, Simon Osborn-King and Yannis Yuen
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
Sanctions: The US Perspective
David Mortlock, Britt Mosman, Nikki Cronin and Ahmad El-Gamal
Francesca Titus, Andrew Thornton-Dibb, Mehboob Dossa, William Boddy and Oscar Ratcliffe
McGuireWoods
Environmental, Social and Governance Investigations
Emily Goddard, Anna Kirkpatrick and Ellen Lake
Alison Pople KC, Johanna Walsh and Mellissa Curzon-Berners
Cloth Fair Chambers and Mishcon De Reya LLP
Publicity: The UK Perspective
Kevin Roberts, Duncan Grieve and Charlotte Glaser
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP
Publicity: The US Perspective
Jodi Avergun and Cheryl Risell
Employee Rights: The UK Perspective
James Carlton, Sona Ganatra and David Murphy
Fox Williams LLP
Employee Rights: The US Perspective
Milton L Williams, Avni P Patel and Jacob Gardener
Walden Macht & Haran LLP
Representing Individuals in Interviews: The UK Perspective
Natalie Sherborn, Carl Newman, Perveen Hill, Anthony Hanratty and Sophie Gilford
Withersworldwide
Representing Individuals in Interviews: The US Perspective
Christopher LaVigne, Martin Auerbach and Georges Lederman
Individuals in Cross-Border Investigations or Proceedings: The US Perspective
Amanda Raad, Michael McGovern, Meghan Gilligan Palermo, Abraham Lee, Chloe Gordils and Ross MacPherson
Ropes & Gray
Individual Penalties and Third-Party Rights: The UK Perspective
Elizabeth Robertson, Vanessa McGoldrick and Jason Williamson
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP
Individual Penalties and Third-Party Rights: The US Perspective
Victoria L Weatherford and Tera N Coleman
Baker & Hostetler
Extradition
Ben Brandon and Aaron Watkins
Mishcon De Reya LLP and Kingsley Napley
Part II: Global Investigations around the World
Introduction to Volume II
Asia-Pacific Overview
Kyle Wombolt and Pamela Kiesselbach
Europe Overview
Robert Dalling and Karam Jardaneh
Jenner & Block
Latin America Overview
María González Calvet
North America Overview
Michael S Diamant
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Gustavo Morales Oliver, María Lorena Schiariti and María Agustina Testa
Marval, O'Farrell & Mairal
Tim Grave and Lara Gotti
Jonathan D King, Ricardo Caiado Lima, Antonio Tovo, André Sampaio Lacerda Ferraz and Mellina Bulgarini Gerhardt
DLA Piper LLP (US) and Campos Mello Advogados in Cooperation with DLA Piper
Sabrina A Bandali, Emrys Davis, Alan P Gardner, Laura Inglis, Amanda C McLachlan, Ruth E Promislow and Nathan J Shaheen
Rafael Collado González, Lucía Álvarez Galvez, Josefa Zamorano Quiroga and Camilo León Millones
FerradaNehme
Kyle Wombolt, Helen Tang and Tracey Cui
Marcela Cristina Blanco and Marcelo Buendía Vélez
Díaz Reus Abogados
Stéphane de Navacelle, Thomas Lapierre and Julie Zorrilla
Navacelle
Eike W Grunert, Michael Reich, David Stoppelmann and Stephan Appt
Pinsent Masons
Ilias Anagnostopoulos, Jerina Zapanti and Alexandros Tsagkalidis
Anagnostopoulos
Donna Wacker, Jonathan Wong, Anita Lam and Michael Wang
Sherbir Panag, Tanya Ganguli and Lavanyaa Chopra
Law Offices of Panag & Babu
Karen Reynolds, Connor Cassidy and Aishlinn Gannon
Giuseppe Fornari, Enrico Di Fiorino, Emanuele Angiuli and Lorena Morrone
Fornari e Associati
Antonio Cárdenas Arriola, Jonathan D King, Daniel González Estrada and Yesica L Garduño Sandoval
William Fotherby and Caitlin Anyon-Peters
Meredith Connell
Dayo Adu, Temiloluwa Dosumu and Esther Randle
Famsville Solicitors
Alberto Rebaza, Augusto Loli, Héctor Gadea, María Haydée Zegarra and Sergio Mattos
Rebaza, Alcázar & de las Casas
Kabir Singh, Janice Goh and Joey Ng
Clifford Chance LLP
Edward James, Deirdré Simaan, Adam Gunn, Thorne Godinho, Sarah Burford and Jazquelyn Govender
Jaime Alonso Gallo
Uría Menéndez
Flavio Romerio, Claudio Bazzani, Katrin Ivell and Reto Ferrari-Visca
Homburger
Burcu Tuzcu Ersin, E Benan Arseven and Z Ertunç Şirin
Moroğlu Arseven
Simon Airey, James Dobias and William Merry
Bradley J Bolerjack and Francisca M Mok
Get more from GIR


Hi, great question! I will focus on your first question, because I think your second question, about public policy, requires discussion of all sorts of things about the distribution of goods in a society, and the law (in the US, for example, we have to keep in mind that our constitution seems to forbid any such funding). Perhaps another panelist can take up those issues. I'll stick to the question whether the feelings that God exists can count as a good reason for believing in God.
First I should point out that many philosophers have written on this, and have different views (shocking! I know). Some, writing in the Calvinist tradition (e.g. Alvin Palntinga and William Alston) think that some feelings that God exists are like perceptions, or sensations, of God, and they should count as evidence for God's existence just like a perception of, say, a table counts as evidence for a table. They both have arguments (different ones) to the effect that one can rationally regard one's feelings about God as perceptions of this kind before one already concludes that there must be a God. Intuitively, this might make some sense. You might think to yourself: hey, I have this feeling, out of nowhere, that there is a God, and since I don't have any evidence to the contrary, why shouldn't I regard this feeling as some indication that there is a God? On the other hand, dig a little deeper and some doubts begin to appear. What best explains the fact that you feel that God exists? Is it a need, or a wish, that you have? Is it the product of, say, your need to feel comforted in certain ways? Is it the product of your desire to think that your upbringing was righteous (if you had a religious upbringing) or all wrong (if you had a secular upbringing)? Is the feeling rooted in a very deep and desperate desire not to die? These suggestions, and many complex variations of them, have all also been offered as alternative explanations of your feeling that God exists. Unless you settle where the feeling comes from, it seems a stretch for you to regard it as a good reason to believe in God, doesn't it? Hmm. Maybe not. Some *other* philosophers argue (erroneously, I happen to think) that information about the causal source of your "evidence," or what you take to be evidence, is irrelevant to whether it is rational for you to believe on its basis.
Ok, so I just said, essentially: lots of people say different things, some regard the feeling as evidence, some don't. So, maybe that doesn't help you. I'll try to help by making two further points. First, there is an ambiguity in the term "reason" in your question, and, second, it may be useful to compare your feeling that God exists to other feelings.
First, what counts as a "good reason" to believe something? In my first paragraph I assumed that only evidence can count. But maybe the feeling you have in mind, perhaps a pervasive, ever-present loving feeling for something greater than us, provides a different sort of reason to believe. Perhaps your feeling makes it a good idea, from a practical perspective, to believe. Some philosophers (most famously Pascal) have thought that practical considerations can make it rational for us to at least try to believe. If believing seems good for you, given your feelings, maybe that's a reason to try to believe it. How you get yourself to believe it is a whole other story (I recommend an essay, basically just a transcription of a lecture, by Daniel Garber, entitled 'What Comes After Pascal's Wager' on this topic). Anyway, my point is that your feelings may provide some non-evidential sort of reason to believe. The downside of thinking this way is that, on reflection, you might conclude that nothing but evidence is a good reason to believe. Believing is taking something to be TRUE, so shouldn't any reason to believe be a reason relevant to the TRUTH? You have to figure that out first.
Second, it might help if we consider feelings about other things, to compare with your feelings that God exist. Suppose I am desperate for money, perhaps I have a very ill relative. Suppose I've run out of other options, and decide that attempting to rob a bank is the only way. This robbery is very risky; I could get shot or arrested, making things even worse for my sick relative. But as I consider it, I am overwhelmed by a feeling that I CAN DO THIS, THIS WILL WORK. Not because I have any evidence that I won't get shot or arrested. It's just a feeling that this is the right course of action and that it will end well. Now, is my feeling a good reason to believe that it will all work for me out when I rob a bank?
Objection! That example is unfair. In this example, I had some reason to think that the bank robbery will not work out. My feeling goes AGAINST my prior knowledge about the robbery plan. But, you might say, your feeling that God exists may occur when I have no prior knowledge, either way, about how likely it is that God exists.
A different example, then: my daughter's birthday is in March. Right now, it is impossible for me to tell how likely it is to be raining in March. But she loves the beach, and I want to plan a grand party for her, now, on the beach. Suppose, for the sake of the example, that I have to reserve the party location now if I want to have the party there in March. Also, suppose I don't know how to use google and so I lack access to average weather in March on this beach. I just really don't know how likely it is, and suppose I lack any good reason to think anything at all about the probability. Some might say: you should think the chance of rain is 50%. Maybe. I myself think that's wrong. But, anyway, I don't have any background knowledge to the effect that it will rain, or that it won't rain. And yet, I have this feeling, when I look at my daughter, that she will LOVE her birthday party on the beach, that it will all work out and there will be no rain. Is this a reason to believe that there will be no rain?
I think that we want to say "No." It's not a good reason to believe that it won't rain. However, I think it is, perhaps, some reason to be hopeful, and to plan for a rainless birthday party. Maybe. At least we get this out of the example: a feeling that it will not rain, or that God exists, may warrant some other attitudes, besides belief, about rain and God. It is worth thinking about that, I think. Let's not pretend that belief is the only thing that matters.


text:
Updated Apr-6-2019, 11:37:56 GMT
Nintendo Switch online plans revealed: Release date and price of multiplayer service confirmed by company
The Independent Jun-2-2017, 15:45:02 GMT
Nintendo will finally unveil its online service for the Switch next year, it has confirmed. The full launch will happen in 2018. When it does, Switch players will pay $20 per year to get access to a range of new and existing features. Until the service rolls out, Switch owners will be able to play online for free. But they also won't get access to the features that will come at the full launch, which includes proper matchmaking and a phone app.
artificial intelligence, computer game, robot, (14 more...)
Country: Asia > China (1.00)
Leisure & Entertainment > Games > Computer Games (1.00)
Automobiles & Trucks > Manufacturer (1.00)
Technology: Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Robots > Autonomous Vehicles (0.72)
Nintendo brings Mario and Zelda to VR with new cardboard Switch headset
The Independent - Tech Apr-6-2019, 11:37:56 GMT
Two of the Switch's biggest games are about to get virtual reality updates. Both Mario and Zelda are getting new features that will allow people to disappear into a cardboard headset and find themselves in New Donk City or Hyrule. The new updates follow the new Nintendo Labo kit, which allows players to buy and then create their own cardboard virtual reality headset. The Switch itself will then slot in the front, allowing the cardboard creation to work as a normal VR headset. We'll tell you what's true.
computer game, human computer interaction, robot, (15 more...)
The Independent - Tech
Asia > China (0.80)
North America > United States (0.48)
Information Technology > Interfaces > Human Computer Interaction > Virtual Reality (1.00)
Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Robots (1.00)
Google Glass: Shock update hints at return from the dead
The Independent Jun-22-2017, 18:25:02 GMT
A new update for Google Glass has just rolled out, to the surprise of the entire technology community. The futuristic gadget failed to take off because people considered it to be ugly, creepy and overly expensive, and we all believed Google had killed it off for good after it halted sales back in 2015. It shut down the Google Glass website too, as well as its social media accounts. The I.F.O. is fuelled by eight electric engines, which is able to push the flying object to an estimated top speed of about 120mph. The giant human-like robot bears a striking resemblance to the military robots starring in the movie'Avatar' and is claimed as a world first by its creators from a South Korean robotic company Waseda University's saxophonist robot WAS-5, developed by professor Atsuo Takanishi and Kaptain Rock playing one string light saber guitar perform jam session A man looks at an exhibit entitled'Mimus' a giant industrial robot which has been reprogrammed to interact with humans during a photocall at the new Design Museum in South Kensington, London Electrification Guru Dr. Wolfgang Ziebart talks about the electric Jaguar I-PACE concept SUV before it was unveiled before the Los Angeles Auto Show in Los Angeles, California, U.S The Jaguar I-PACE Concept car is the start of a new era for Jaguar.
ground transportation, human computer interaction, robot, (14 more...)
Information Technology (1.00)
Transportation > Ground > Road (0.31)
Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Robots > Autonomous Vehicles (0.72)
Information Technology > Artificial Intelligence > Robots > Humanoid Robots (0.70)
Global cyber attack is a new version of the 'Wannacry' virus that took down the NHS, Ukrainian official says
An adviser to Ukraine's interior minister said a version of the "WannaCry" ransomware had caused outages on government websites and those of several companies, a cyber attack he called the worst in Ukraine's history. The hack began in the country but has since spread across the world, hitting companies as widely as Danish shipping company Maersk and British advertising company WPP, the biggest in the world. Adviser Anton Gerashchenko said Ukrainian IT systems had been targeted with "Cryptolocker" a version of WannaCry, the virus that locked up more than 200,000 computers in more than 150 countries in May. The I.F.O. is fuelled by eight electric engines, which is able to push the flying object to an estimated top speed of about 120mph. The giant human-like robot bears a striking resemblance to the military robots starring in the movie'Avatar' and is claimed as a world first by its creators from a South Korean robotic company Waseda University's saxophonist robot WAS-5, developed by professor Atsuo Takanishi and Kaptain Rock playing one string light saber guitar perform jam session A man looks at an exhibit entitled'Mimus' a giant industrial robot which has been reprogrammed to interact with humans during a photocall at the new Design Museum in South Kensington, London Electrification Guru Dr. Wolfgang Ziebart talks about the electric Jaguar I-PACE concept SUV before it was unveiled before the Los Angeles Auto Show in Los Angeles, California, U.S The Jaguar I-PACE Concept car is the start of a new era for Jaguar.
cyberwarfare, robot, uk government, (15 more...)
Europe > Russia (0.86)
Asia > Ukraine (0.81)
Government > Military > Cyberwarfare (0.71)
Volvo to make only electric cars from 2019, marking the end of the petrol engine
The Independent Jul-5-2017, 10:10:05 GMT
All of Volvo's cars from 2019 will be powered by electric motors, the company has announced. Describing the decision as "one of the most significant moves by any car maker", Volvo said that by 2019 it will make a range of cars, none of which will be powered purely by a combustion engine. There will still be some hybrid vehicles, which use a traditional motor alongside an electric one. But the company will also focus on fully electric cars. The I.F.O. is fuelled by eight electric engines, which is able to push the flying object to an estimated top speed of about 120mph.
artificial intelligence, ground transportation, robot, (14 more...)

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


View on demand video replays of training webinars from the national Population Health Improvement Learning Collaborative. Two purchase options are available: 1.) Purchase 30-day access to a single 60-minute webinar(s) for $95 each; 2.) Purchase one-year access to the entire training library, including new videos added monthly through 2011, for $495 (a 75% savings). Either way, you will receive a PDF copy of each webinar and CE certificate. Each event is pre-approved for 1.0 hour toward CE recertification and may meet other recertification or licensure CE requirements.


text:
Stephen Kimber > Freelance > Halifax Examiner > Turmoil at the Nova Scotia Barristers Society, Take 32
Turmoil at the Nova Scotia Barristers Society, Take 32
The case of the "disappeared" governance review. And so it continues.
Nova Scotia Barristers' Society notice. Still trying to move forward.
According to a new report on the inner workings of the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society, "some council members are so concerned with being heard that they cannot listen… New members often feel dismissed and disrespected… Some members are focused on who speaks rather than what they have to say. In a system and implementation that is broken, new input is greeted with either distrust or disdain."
No, this is not that report by Douglas Ruck, the former provincial ombudsman and respected human rights lawyer whom the society appointed in April 2021 to produce "a comprehensive external, independent review of our regulatory policies and processes to identify and address any areas of systemic discrimination that exist within the society."
That review, you may recall, was announced in the messy middle of what has become a roiling, rolling controversy over systemic discrimination inside the province's all-powerful legal regulator.
Lyle Howe arrives at court with his partner Laura McCarthy.
In June 2020, the society piggybacked on worldwide revulsion at the murder of George Floyd, a Black man, by a white Minneapolis police officer, issuing a statement trumpeting its own deep and longstanding commitment to tackling racism and offering its renewed promise to "lead Nova Scotia's legal profession by example."
Except, of course, that the society's own hands hardly seemed clean. Lyle Howe, one of Nova Scotia's few Black criminal defence lawyers, was still challenging the society over a 2017 decision by an all-white hearing panel to disbar him in a case he claimed was rife with racism.
Howe's wife and former law partner, Laura McCarthy, had quickly called out the society's hypocrisy in a blistering letter to its governing council, dismissing the anti-racism statement as "empty words" and declaring the NSBS "cannot move into a new chapter of trust and equality with their marginalized members and the public when there is so much discrimination dirt still under their rug."
In the nearly two years since that dustup, you'd need a scorecard to keep track of the number of resignations, firings and unexplained disappearances among the NSBS governing council and senior staff. They include:
Jim Rossiter, the council's president, who quit early in 2021, less than seven months into his one-year term, vaguely noting that the stress of the job had become more than he "could bear."
Denise Mentis-Smith, the second vice-president, who quit early too, without publicly explaining why.
Josie McKinney — an Indigenous lawyer, Nova Scotia's first fulltime human trafficking prosecutor and the co-chair of the society's racial equity committee — who quit in November 2021 "as a result of the direct and systemic racism and discrimination that I have experienced during my time on council."
That same day, Rod Wilson — a former president of the Nova Scotia College of Physicians and Surgeons who was a volunteer public representative on the council — resigned too, describing his experience at the bar society as "one shit show after another for the last two years." NSBS, he said, had been "by far the most dysfunctional organization and least rewarding" of the many boards he'd served on.
Tilly Pillay, whose appointment in 2019 as the first person of colour to serve as executive director of the society was widely trumpeted, departed the job with little fanfare last spring.
Bernadine MacAulay, the society's first in-house general counsel who was hired in 2019 was "terminated on February 23, 2022… I was not provided a reason," MacAulay said.
Between Pillay and MacAulay, the society's director of professional responsibility, Andrew Taillon, also left after less than a year on the job. No explanation was provided for his departure either.
No wonder the bar society appointed Doug Ruck to figure out what is wrong and how to fix it. He has already conducted 175 interviews with more scheduled. This is the report we have been expecting. When he was appointed last April, we were told to expect his first report in eight to 10 months.
But his interim report is now not expected until June, a final report at the end of the summer.
So, what was that report I quoted from at the top of this column?
That report — a "governance engagement review of the society's council" — was prepared by Paula Minnikin, who began work on her own review last summer.
Minnikin is a Halifax-based business management consultant who serves as a non-lawyer volunteer member of the society's governance committee. She's previously held leadership positions at Xwave, the former BellAliant company, and Jacques Whitford, the environmental science, engineering, and consulting firm.
Minnikin's review apparently "underlines key disconnects" and identifies "questionable conduct and other strife" while describing a "cultural mismatch between public lawyers and private lawyers," citing "a pervasive lack of trust" within the council.
She also took aim at what she called "equity for equity's sake."
Equity in service of a goal is better than efforts in service of equity for equity's sake… It would be more productive to have a diverse committee working to improve access to legal services for the underserved public than to have so many committees focused internally on equity.
Minnikin's review includes 30 recommendations.
I know that much because I read it on allnovascotia.com, which reported on the review in its April 5th edition. The business news website noted that Minnikin's "executive summary [was] recently posted to the society's website."
But when I went looking for a copy on April 16, I discovered it's no longer there — or at least not publicly available.
So much for transparency and accountability. (I have asked the barrister's society for an explanation, and will add that to this column when I hear back from them.)
Still, it seems to be one more reason why the Nova Scotia government needs to reconsider whether lawyers should continue to have the privilege to regulate themselves.
Because… well, they don't seem to be doing a very good job at it.
A version of this column originally appeared in the Halifax Examiner.
To read the latest column, please subscribe.
Lyle Howe
Nova Scotia Barristers Society


No way, no how, was I going to leave the house this morning with all of those crazy people running every which way, trying to find a bargain!
I actually got a bit of work done.
I have come to the conclusion that I have to put away the heat gun and let things dry naturally.
As you can see, the wet vinegar solution looks darker in the third try.
I made the mistake of using the heat gun immediately and the results was, the solution didn't soak into the wood enough to turn it a darker brown/gray. I will do another section and let it dry naturally. I am sure that it will be darker that way.
I worked for about four hours this morning and finally finished the Tudor Wall House roof!I am cross eyed, but am patting myself on the back for finishing that awful job.
Tessie tested it for "slide capabilities". Too short. She just slid right off the end. It's just a good thing that she can catch herself by zapping to another location.
Zar and Spike just sit and watch in amazement when she disappears into thin air and comes up in another location.
The trip to Phoenix, yesterday, was uneventful. At one point, the electronic road sign over the highway announced that there was an accident 17 miles ahead.....It was stop and go traffic for about half an hour. We never did see any accident....Just A lot of sitting and waiting, then creeping ahead at a snail's pace.
It did give me time to knit the start of an interesting scarf. It is called a Potato Chip Scarf....(Bet you can't knit just one).
The pattern is so simple that you can memorize it in about 30 seconds and go on your merry way.
I found the pattern somewhere on the Ravlery site. The actual pattern is here. http://oceanwavesquilts.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/02/potato-chip-scarf.html I think that they might be right. If this one looks good on, I will probably make more....Mindless knitting for TV and travel.
The roof and the scarf are great! i am really impressed at how that home made stain works. Beautiful.


While you are looking for a new pillow foam can also be a good choice, a polyurethane foam pillow is what a doctor usually recommends if you suffer from neck or back pain when you awaken. A foam pillow supplies more support for your side than a feather pillow, if you don't have chronic neck pains you will probably find foam pillow to be to firm. A cotton centre pillow is another option you could also consider, this kind of pillow is frequently flatter than the other kind of pillows they also don't maintain their shape and therefore don't mold around your head and neck like some of the other kinds. Although many people really like their cotton pillows because they will feel that they let the human body rest as it naturally desires to and they will not trade all their cotton pillow for anything at all and also use them faithfully without suffering any neck soreness.
Theartoftheoccasion - : velvet bolster pillow. Aitliving throw pillow covers 12x20 inches soft cotton velvet dusk lilac with cotton linen reverse decorative bolster pillow cover 1 pc 0cm lilac mauve. Bolster pillows you'll love wayfair. Shop bolster pillows for design velvet bolster pillow give your patio furniture a new look with a decorative pillow that has a waterproof cover. : bolster pillows: home & kitchen. Jiaao half moon bolster pillow for back pain memory foam knee support pillow for side premium bolster pillow with bamboo cover velvet; brand. Jw marriott velvet bolster pillow. Elevate your jw bed with the geometric pattern of our essex house velvet bolster pillow shop our pillow collection including the jw pillow, feather and. Velvet bolster pillow ebay. Find great deals on ebay for velvet bolster pillow shop with confidence. Velvet bolster pillow cover etsy uk. You searched for: velvet bolster pillow cover good news! etsy has thousands of handcrafted and vintage products that perfectly fit what you're searching. Velvet ribbon bolster pillow the house that lars built. Velvet ribbon bolster pillow of purl soho watercolor linen in monarch gray make the pillow cover by cutting a piece of fabric that is 18�� � 20. Bolster covers online at discounted prices on flipkart. Buy bolster covers online: if you are thinking to buy soft and comfortable pillows and cushions, you can choose bolsters covers include silk, velvet,. Velvet bolster etsy. You searched for: velvet bolster! bolster designer velvet grey pillow cover all size available cushion button tufted side lumbar piping. Buy bolster pillow covers from bed bath & beyond. Buy "bolster pillow covers" products like antler bolster throw pillow in brown, glenna jean caitlyn bolster pillow, christy lifestyle shanti bolster throw.


text:
CHANDRAMMA IS THE FASTEST 11 YR OLD GIRL IN BANGALORE !
ANNAPOORNA CHARITABLE TRUST
Annapoorna Trust runs an orphanage & school for 70+ kids where their love & encouragement gives kids like Chandramma a winning chance !
GOAL INR 15,00,000
Campaign ended.
Charity, Children
Found begging on the streets, Chandramma and her brother Narshima were brought to the Annapoorna Ashram back in 2011. Their parents had left them on the road and told them that they would return for them, but never came back for the children.
TODAY CHANDRAMMA IS THE FASTEST 11 YEAR OLD RUNNER IN BANGALORE!
She excels in the 100 & 200 meters distances and is also good at Kabaddi.She is currently competing at the district level & wants to make it to the state level competition. She can read and write in English & Kannada, can handle a computer and can browse the internet.
Annapoorna has transformed the lives of many such orphans.
Success is always about grabbing onto opportunities, making the best use of chances that you are given. Both Nelson Mandela and Steve Jobs, among many others, were orphans who were adopted and given a chance to thrive. However, adoption is a huge challenge and not something that everybody has the capacity to undertake. That does not mean that there is no other option.
WHAT DO WE DO DIFFERENT:
At the Annapoorna Trust we take care of all their needs of these children so that they become well rounded personalities.
# STAY – we have a hostel that currently houses 70 kids - separate for boys & girls
# FOOD & CLOTHING – we take care of all their needs
# EDUCATION – Our school educates children from standard 1 to 10
# EXTRA CURRICULAR activities – we invest a significant amount of time and effort in pursuing activities like sports, dance, music etc.
# MEDICAL – We take care of all their medical needs.
WE DO ALL THIS AT A VERY LOW COST.
IT COSTS US ONLY 150 RUPEES PER CHILD PER DAY TO LOOK AFTER EACH CHILD.
SO FOR 4500 INR YOU COULD ACTUALLY FUND A CHILD FOR An ENTIRE MONTH.
Each of the 70 orphan children who live at Annapoorna has a unique story to tell.
All of them enjoy a significantly enriched life thanks to donors like you. Give these children a better future by supporting this campaign of ours
YOU CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN.YOU CAN GIVE A CHILD 'HOPE'
THERE ARE ESTIMATED TO BE MORE THAN 20 MILLION ORPHANS IN INDIA
An organization formed by a group of like-minded persons with the noble vision to look after the growing needs of the socially deprived children of the society. The primary vision of the trust is to bring solace to deprived/Orphan children.
Mrs. Annapoorna was working as a teacher in a School for Physically and mentally disabled children and had plenty of opportunity to interact with parents and understand their difficulties. She was inspired to help the children of construction workers who have no access to good education, proper food, and more than anything else, the opportunity to have a normal childhood. This give birth to "Annapoorna Charitable Trust" and 'Balya'-a free Home for Children in Bangalore in 2004. The Annapoorna Charitable Trust started off with two infants named Phalguni & Vaishaki, and today it is home to about 100 kids – 70 of whom are orphans and stay & study here .The other 30 children from underprivileged backgrounds who live around our campus and come to study at our school.
We have children like Lakshmi who have been mentally & physically traumatised too. Lakshmi was sold by her parents to a family. She was ill treated by the people who bought her. They used to shut her up in a single room for days and starve her. The people in her residential society, seeing her ill treatment lodged a complaint with the police and arrested both her parents and the persons who had bought her.Now both her parents and the people who have bought them are in jail. Lakshmi now stays at Annapoorna and is happy like every other kid at our orphanage. She studies in the 5th Class.
We have many kids who are born to sexually abused women. Today these kids live a decent life at Annapoorna. All of them go to our school which we run for these kids and take part in different inter school events
In: 2004
WHY DO WE NEED YOUR HELP?
It costs Rs.150 for a day to take care of everything for one child including living costs and education costs. We are raising 12 Lakhs INR through this campaign to fund our financial needs for the next 3 months.
SPONSOR A CHILD FOR A MONTH: Rs. 4,500
SPONSOR A CHILD FOR A YEAR: Rs. 54,000
Updates and Feedback:
Team will regularly post feedback, once a month, updating all the funders on how the money collected through your donations has been utilised at our Orphanage.
Other ways you can help:
Share our Campaign: Spreading the word through friends & family and social media will be beneficial to our cause !
Who owns and manages the trust?
The Annapoorna Charitable Trust was founded by Mr & Mrs Ram and is also managed by the family. The entire family volunteers to help out in the Orphanage in any way they can.
How much money does Annapoorna trust need monthly?
Currently, for the 70 orphans who live with us & the 30 students who come in daily to school (i.e. a total of 100 children) we spend approximately 150 INR/day per child, which translates a monthly expenditure of 4.5 lakh INR only for the entire trust. We are raising 15 L through this campaign on Fueladream. Net of fees to be paid to Fueladream we will raise 13.5L which will take care of the costs of these 100 children for 3 months!
For every 100 INR of funding that you get how much goes into admin & salary costs?
Approx. 15 % goes into admin and salary costs.
Monthly Updates have been committed to after the campaign ends.
Ram Prasad
Vineeth Kumar
Ranganath Thota
Chandramouli Vijjhala
Hena Anand
Sunil Subramanya
A shoutout on our Facebook Page
Your donation has made a difference for a day to 5 of our kids & for that we will acknowledge your generosity by mentioning your name and amount donated on our Facebook page.
A shoutout on our Facebook Page PLUS a personalized e-card
Your donation has impacted 10 kids for a day , we will be mentioning your name and amount donated on our Facebook page and send you a thank you e-card
Sponsoring a Child for a Month
We will send you a picture of the child  and details of the child.You will receive a call from the child thanking you for your generosity
Sponsoring a Child for a Quarter
We will send you a picture of the child , details and a hand written note saying thank you.A thank you song will be recorded for you . It will be personalized & sent to you.
Sponsoring a Child for Half a Year
We will send you a picture,details, a hand written note which the child can write about life at Annapurna. A thank you song will be recorded for you . It will be personalized & sent to you.
Sponsoring a Child for a Full year
We will send you a picture,details, a hand written note from the child about their life at Annapurna and arrange for a live video skype tour of the Ashram with the child.
An amazing opportunity!
Besides the above rewards, your name will be mentioned on a plaq at our school.


#21 on my 28 Things to Do While I'm 28 list is to learn to cook three new things. I am still pretty damn psyched about feeling confident with making chili and sausage risotto, and I wanted to force myself to expand my repertoire a bit. Of course, now my birthday is three months away and I haven't learned to cook anything new at all, so I'm starting to panic a bit. Because this list is clearly supposed to make me worry about stuff, rather than gently inspiring me to do more and be happier.
So today I decided to try what I think is a Mark Bittman recipe from the New York Times for Roasted Sweet Potato Salad with Black Beans and Chili Dressing because if there are two things I love, they are sweet potatoes and black beans. The end result was not very photogenic at all, and I suppose it would have been a little less jarring if I'd expected it to be more like a potato salad. Don't get me wrong, it was very, very tasty (black beans, sweet potatoes, onion, red peppers, with a sauce made of jalapenos, lime juice, and garlic) and maybe it'll be better as leftovers when the flavors have had time to meld. But it was a lot of flavor. Still, I'm glad I'm back to tentatively trying new things. Sort of.
This entry was posted in 28 to do list, cookery. Bookmark the permalink.