Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.YOUR headline "decision to free McAliskey made on political grounds" (11 March) was not even supported by the story beneath it, still less by the truth.
I did not discuss the case with any other minister outside the Home Office, nor did I receive representations from any other minister about what you alleged are wider political implications. I took my decision having considered the representations put forward by Roisin McAliskey's solicitors, having regard to the requirements of the Extradition Act 1989. The material before me included two detailed medical reports, one from the doctors who have been treating Roisin McAliskey since the middle of 1997 and one by a leading forensic psychiatrist retained by the Home Office.
By law, I am required not to return a fugitive if I believe that it would be unjust or oppressive to do so. That was the basis for the decision in this case as it was in another case which I also dealt with last weekend (wholly unrelated to any terrorist allegations) where again, on overwhelming medical evidence, I decided not to order return. I took both decisions carefully, and as is required of me by the 1989 Act.
You were also wrong to imply that I had "waited" before making a decision in this case. I received the papers last Friday, read them over the weekend and made and announced my decision on Monday.
JACK STRAW
Home Secretary
Home Office
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments