The applicant had been committed to prison pending extradition proceedings brought by Hong Kong alleging substantial fraud. He challenged the committal on the grounds that since the allegations involved transmission of funds over international borders, if he had committed the acts alleged in the UK an offence would not have been committed, since the funds were transmitted from abroad, and the offences were extra-territorial.
Held: The act of appropriation occurred when the defendant assumed the rights of an owner. His sending of the telex was the last act he needed to do, and that would not be extra territorial. The evidence required was that upon which a properly directed jury could commit. Last, the procedure under the 1967 Act was to be similar to that in the 1870 Act. Accordingly the list of offences could be phrased in general terms, and was capable of amendment. As regards evidence from computer printouts, the provisions of subsection 2 were alternatives, and not cumulative, since section 68(1)(b) required any one of them to be present. If there was no internal evidence of malfunction, such a printout should be admitted under section 69. Once documents which may have had legal professional privilege had been produced that did not affect their later admission. Police powers of arrest and search were the same on a domestic crime as under the 1967 Act.
Lloyd LJ observed: ‘The practice in extradition cases has been that the English ‘offences’ are stated in the authority to proceed in very general terms. The magistrate is not, of course, concerned with whether the offence is made out in foreign law. He is concerned solely with whether the evidence would support committal for trial in England, if the conduct complained of had taken place in England: see In re Nielsen [1984] AC 606. So the magistrate is furnished at the commencement of the hearing with a schedule of charges based on the alleged conduct and formulated in accordance with English law. The schedule of charges is frequently amended in the course of the hearing.’
Lloyd LJ and French J
[1990] 1 WLR 277
Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 5 7(5) 8, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 68(1)(2), Theft Act 1968 (c. 60) 3(1), Extradition Act 1870
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Morris (David); Anderton v Burnside HL 2-Jan-1983
The defendants had been accused of theft. One switched labels on a joint of pork in a supermarket, and the other presented the meat with the now cheaper label for purchase.
Held: The appeals were dismissed. There can be no conviction for theft . .
Cited – Regina v Navvabi CACD 1986
. .
Cited – Chan Man-sin v The Queen PC 1988
. .
Applied – Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .
Distinguished – Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Tarling HL 1978
The Government of Singapore sought Mr Tarling’s extradition inter alia on two charges of conspiring in Hong Kong to steal shares in a Hong Kong company, the property of a Singapore Company.
Held: a conspiracy in Hong Kong to steal shares in a . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Gardner QBD 1968
A person was not eligible for surrender to New Zealand, the requesting country, because the offences with which he was charged in New Zealand involved the obtaining of property by knowingly false representations as to future conduct. English . .
Cited – Calcraft v Guest CA 1898
A trial had taken place in which the principal issue was the upper boundary of the plaintiff’s fishery. On appeal the defendant proposed to rely on new evidence discovered among the papers in another action tried over a hundred years before. The . .
Cited – Kajala v Noble CACD 1982
The best evidence rule does not generally exclude the admission of evidence of lesser quality. If such a rule exists, it applies only to documents in the possession of the party
Ackner LJ said: ‘The old rule, that a party must produce the best . .
Cited by:
Considered – Regina (Michael Rottman) v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis and Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 24-Jul-2001
There is no residual common law power of entry for police to enter into premises to execute a search without first obtaining a warrant, beyond that contained in the Act. The Act was intended to provide a complete statement of the powers of entry for . .
Cited – Masquerade Music Ltd and Others v Bruce Springsteen CA 10-Apr-2001
The respondent was a composer who sought to restrict the import of CDs containing his music into the UK. The appellants responded putting him to strict proof of his title. The title included assignments from a partnership to limited companies, but . .
Cited – Regina v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis, ex parte Rottman HL 16-May-2002
The defendant had been arrested under an extradition warrant issued under the Act. The police had searched his premises, and found further evidence which was used to support the application for extradition. He challenged the collection and admission . .
Cited – Holmes v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another Admn 20-Aug-2004
The applicant sought his release from imprisonment where he awaited extradition to Germany. He was suspected of an offence of deception. He said there was insufficient evidence that the offence alleged would be an offence here. The alleged offence . .
Cited – Gomes v Trinidad and Tobago HL 29-Apr-2009
Each appellant challenged orders for their extradition, saying that the delay had been too prolonged, and that detention in Trinidad’s appalling jails would be an infringement of their human rights.
Held: The House had to consider its own . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Extradition, Evidence, Extradition, Police
Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.175510