Where a magistrates’ court heard an application for extradition, it was within its proper ambit to assess the lawfulness of the detention of the suspect in the light of the Human Rights Convention, but not to stray onto issues which were only for the eventual court of trial to hear. Article 5 expressly required the lawfulness of a person’s detention to be determined speedily by a court. The Magistrates’ Court was the obvious and proper forum for this question. Existing case law which said that it was not for the Magistrates to decide whether the procedure as a whole was an abuse did not restrict this Human Rights power.
Judges:
Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Pitchford
Citations:
Times 12-Dec-2001, Gazette 01-Feb-2002, [2001] EWHC 980 (Admin), [2001] EWHC Admin 980, [2002] QB 887
Links:
Statutes:
Extradition Act 1989 11(3) Sch1 Para 6(1), European Convention on Human Rights 5
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Atkinson v Government of the United States HL 1969
The House heard an appeal from the magistrates’ refusal to commit the accused in the course of extradition proceedings.
Held: There is no abuse of process jurisdiction in extradition proceedings. There is no power to state a case in relation . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Sinclair; Sinclair v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1991
The applicant had left the USA after conviction, but before his prison term commenced, and a warrant issued. Nine years later he was arrested in the UK, and extradition sought. He said that the extradition was time-barred under the Order. The . .
Cited – In Re Schmidt HL 1-Jul-1994
The appellant sought to persuade the House that in extradition proceedings the courts enjoyed a similar jurisdiction to that exercised in Bennett.
Held: The appeal failed. The High Court has no inherent power to intervene in extradition . .
Cited – Regina v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex Parte Bennett (No 1) HL 24-Jun-1993
The defendant had been brought to the UK in a manner which was in breach of extradition law. He had, in effect, been kidnapped by the authorities.
Held: The High Court may look at how an accused person was brought within the jurisdiction when . .
Cited by:
Cited – Raissi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 14-Feb-2008
The claimant appealed against refusal of his request for judicial review of the defendant’s decision not to award him damages after his wrongful arrest and detention after he was wrongly suspected of involvement in terrorism. He had been discharged . .
Cited – Lukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland SC 23-May-2012
Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for the extradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Extradition, Human Rights, Magistrates
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167014