In each case the defendant argued that his extradition would interfere with his article 8 rights to private and family life.
Held: Silber J said: ‘It is clear that the approach of the courts to article 8 rights has to be radically different in extradition cases . . because of the very important obligation of the state to ensure that those who are to be investigated, prosecuted or imprisoned for criminal offences are returned to those countries.’
Silber J
[2011] EWHC 963 (Admin)
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Cited by:
Incorrect – HH v Deputy Prosecutor of The Italian Republic, Genoa SC 20-Jun-2012
In each case the defendant sought to resist European Extradition Warrants saying that an order would be a disporportionate interference in their human right to family life. The Court asked whether its approach as set out in Norris, had to be amended . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Extradition, Human Rights
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.432844
