To found an extradition application, it was not sufficient that the crime should be listed as such by English law, but it was also necessary that it should be a crime of appropriate standing in the country to which extradition was sought. The crime also had to have been committed within the territory of the … Continue reading Al-Fawwaz v Governor of Brixton Prison: QBD 20 Dec 2000
The claimant sought a writ of habeas corpus. The Commissioners of Customs and Excise had requested the arrest of the claimant in the US pending extradition. It was not realised that the offence alleged was not sufficient to found extradition. The . .
Citations:  EWHC 2352 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Extradition Act 1989 11(3)(b) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Extradition Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.218868
The defendant sought to challenge an order for his extradition, saying that four of the five charges were time barred. Held: It was sufficient that any one charge remained effective. The court’s discretion in the section was limited. Judges: Wool LCJ, Mackay J Citations: Times 06-Dec-2003,  EWHC 3077 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Extradition Act … Continue reading Jaffar v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another: QBD 25 Nov 2003
The prisoner had been convicted in his absence in 1991 of offences in Italy. He was resident in England at the time, and many years later extradition was sought. He had not hidden his whereabouts, and the Italian State seemed not to have pursued him. He now said it would not be in the interests … Continue reading Spinnato, Re v Governor of HM Prison Brixton and Another: Admn 20 Dec 2001
A request had been made for the extradition of the applicant for offences for which he had already been tried and acquitted in Turkey. He said that the length of time since the offences made it unfair to return him, and that he faced the possibility of being tried twice for the same offence. Held: … Continue reading Regina (Oncel) v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another: QBD 19 Dec 2001
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 … Continue reading Regina (Kashamu) v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another; Regina (Kashamu) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court; Regina (Makhlulif and Another) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court: QBD 23 Nov 2001
The applicant for habeas corpus resisted extradition to India on the ground, among others, that the prosecution relied on a statement obtained by torture and since retracted. Held: the court accepted the magistrate’s judgment that fairness did not call for exclusion of the statement, but was clear that the common law and domestic statute law … Continue reading Nadeem Akhtar Saifi v Governor of Brixton Prison and Union of India: Admn 21 Dec 2000
Citations:  EWHC Admin 462 Links: Bailii Statutes: Extradition Act 1989 11(3)(c) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: See Also – Pinto v Governor of Brixton Prison and another Admn 2004 The Court was asked to grant Habeas Corpus on the ground that the European Arrest Warrant received in respect of the defendant was ‘fundamentally … Continue reading In re Agnaldo Ernesto Pinto and In the Matter of an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum Agnaldo Ernesto Pinto and Secretary of State for Home Department; Governor of Brixton Prison and Government of India: Admn 19 May 1999
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 proceedings outside the terms of the Act. ‘Accordingly, the position now is that in extradition proceedings under the … Continue reading In Re Schmidt: HL 1 Jul 1994
The obtaining of an order to obtain evidence in support of a writ of habeas corpus application is a criminal matter. The Court of Appeal has no civil jurisdiction. Extradition proceedings, as well as proceedings ancillary or incidental to those . .
The claimants faced extradition to the US. They said that the respondent had infringed their human rights by deciding not to prosecute them in the UK. There was no mutuality in the Act under which they were to be extradited.
Held: The Director . .
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 . .
The extraditee had been convicted in his absence in Italy having fled to avoid the trial. He complained that the trial process had been unfair and the evidence against him weak.
Held: The court’s duty was not to investigate the evidential . .