The claimants sought judicial review of the respondents’ refusal to order their discharge from extradition proceedings. The extradition hearing had not been commenced within the time specified in section 74. Though listed, through a prison error, the claimants were not produced from prison, and their solicitors were not notified. Only a bail application was heard.
Held: Judicial review was not available. Section 116 restricted challenges to decisions made save by appeal. An appeal was the sensible form of redress. An application under 75(4) was available before, but only before, the hearing had begun. In this case the defendant had not made that application.
Stanley Burnton LJ, Nicol J
[2010] EWHC 2148 (Admin), [2011] 1 WLR 1139
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003 75(4) 116
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Asliturk v HMP Wandsworth Admn 16-Jun-2010
The claimant was remanded into custody pending extradition. He now appealed against refusal of bail.
Held: Bail was refused. . .
Cited by:
Cited – BH and Another v The Lord Advocate and Another SC 20-Jun-2012
The appellants wished to resist their extradition to the US to face criminal charges for drugs. As a married couple that said that the extraditions would interfere with their children’s rights to family life.
Held: The appeals against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Extradition
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.421510