Extradition of the defendant was sought so as to serve a sentence of imprisonment.
Held: Use in the warrant of the actual words in the Act was not required. ‘Even if the actual words of the Act are not incorporated in the request, and even if there is no equivalent wording, in my view, at least in a clear case, it is permissible for the Secretary of State to look at the request itself and its supporting documents to see whether the matter is clear. Adopting a purposive interpretation of the 2003 Act, it seems to me that this is, in effect, an examination of whether the request contains the necessary statement.’ and ‘My conclusion is that it is only in a clear case that the Secretary of State should conclude, in the absence of a statement by the requesting state, that the relevant defendant is not only at large but unlawfully at large.’
Judges:
Crane J
Citations:
[2004] EWHC 2034 (Admin), [2005] 1 WLR 3194, [2005] 1 All ER 810
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Office of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and others HL 17-Nov-2005
The defendant resisted extradition to Brussels saying that the offence had been committed in part in England. He had absconded and been convicted. Application was made for his return to serve his sentence. The offences associated with organisation . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Extradition
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.201625