As one of the ‘NatWest Three’, I have first-hand experience of the workings and impact of the Extradition Act, to which Joshua Rozenberg refers.

With all due respect to Mr Rozenberg, he does a disservice to those who have long campaigned against this insidious piece of legislation. There are good things in the recent Scott Baker review, most notably the recommendations on European Arrest Warrant procedures. However, it runs entirely contrary to the overwhelming tide of opinion in two areas: the US/UK treaty, and the proposed ‘forum’ amendment.

In 2005 our case highlighted those concerns. They have remained running sores ever since, in cases as diverse as these of Gary McKinnon, Ian Norris, Babar Ahmad, Christopher Tappin and most recently, Richard O’Dwyer. This disquiet is not simply the product of media campaigns or aggressive lobbying. Every member of the current cabinet who was an MP in 2006 has voted for both the forum clause and US/UK treaty amendment. Many of these people are distinguished lawyers, such as the attorney general and solicitor general, both of whom have spoken powerfully on the need for change.

Sir Scott Baker’s review is a fine piece of dry legal analysis, but lacks the one ingredient that would perhaps have served it best - humanity. It starts from an unspoken proposition - that extradition is fundamentally desirable. It is a treatise on expeditious process rather than an analysis of what our extradition law should be about.

This is a great shame and I believe an opportunity wasted.

David Bermingham, Goring, Oxon