UK incest paedophile suspect awaits extradition decision

A suspected British paedophile fighting the UK Government’s application to have him extradited, has tried to prevent documents that prove it wants to prosecute him from being submitted to the Randburg Magistrate’s Court. A Times Select report says the Scottish citizen (72) has been living in SA for decades, and it was in 2010 that a warrant of arrest was issued in Britain, two years after his now adult stepdaughters living there laid indecency charges against him, claiming he had abused them for years. Now, after more than five years in court, he will know at the end of the month whether he will be extradited to his home country to be prosecuted. However, he continues to fight the UK Government’s application. The man had initially argued that, based on SA law, the crimes he is accused of occurred more than 20 years prior and he could not be prosecuted and the extradition proceedings should not go ahead. The Constitutional Court made a landmark ruling in 2018 that changed the law around sexual assault, which now no longer prescribes after 20 years. Since the case was reinstated, the extradition proceedings have been running smoothly in recent months, with both sides concluding their closing arguments.

Magistrate Lee Carolus then requested further documentation proving that the British Government still wished to prosecute. The Times Select report notes that statements were provided from both complainants that they still wished to prosecute the man, as well as affidavits from a UK specialist prosecutor, who provided the legal arguments that would be used against him. A Section 10(2) certificate was also provided, which is required by the SA Extradition Act to allow extradition proceedings to continue. It essentially confirms that the British government believes it has a strong criminal case against the man. However, the man’s defence lawyer, Jenna Clark, objected to these documents being submitted to the court, arguing that the state had already concluded its case, and that – in terms of international and local legislation – there was no precedent for a magistrate to request such further documentation from another government. Rather, she said, the state needed to request this of its own accord. While the magistrate indicated she wished to give judgment on the extradition today, she later opted to take her time in formulating it, postponing the case to the end of March to deliver it.