Barnette v Government of the United States of America; United States Government v Montgomery (No 2): CA 24 Mar 2003

The appellant sought to resist the registration here of a confiscation order made in the US. She argued it would be contrary to the interests of justice to register it, that the US procedure would be unlawful here under the Convention, the appeal having been held in her absence.
Held: It could not be said that the registration here of the order would lead to a breach of the applicant’s human rights. Any breach of the applicant’s human rights in the US was not flagrant. English law itself allowed such a hearing in limited circumstances. The US proceedings were seen as civil. In the interests of comity, the order should be registered.
Lord Justice Scott Baker Lord Chief Justice Of England And Wales Lord Justice Kennedy
[2003] EWCA Civ 392, Times 28-Mar-2003, Gazette 05-Jun-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 1916
Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 97, European Convention on Human Rights 6.1
England and Wales
Citing:
See alsoUnited States Government v Montgomery and Another HL 6-Feb-2001
An English court had power to make a restraining order against the disposal of assets pending an application for confiscation pursuant to a US order. This applied even if the US original judgment predated the date on which the US was added to the . .
DistinguishedSoering v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989
(Plenary Court) The applicant was held in prison in the UK, pending extradition to the US to face allegations of murder, for which he faced the risk of the death sentence, which would be unlawful in the UK. If extradited, a representation would be . .
CitedHadkinson v Hadkinson CA 1952
The courts adopt an approach similar to that of the United States courts where there has been a significant contempt on the part of a party to litigation. Denning LJ said: ‘Those cases seem to me to point the way to the modern rule. It is a strong . .
CitedWim Harry Gerard Maronier v Bryan Larmer CA 29-May-2002
The defendant had been a dentist in the Netherlands. An action for damages was begun against him, but then stayed. Judgment was later entered in the Netherlands after he had moved to the UK, and of which he was ignorant. There was no subsisting . .
Appeal fromGovernment of the United States of America v Barnette and another Admn 2002
The applicant sought to register, under the Act, an order against the funds of the defendant, who replied that the order sought to be registered had been obtained in a way which would infringe her human rights if obtained here. As a fugitive she had . .

Cited by:
See AlsoUnited States Government v Montgomery and Another HL 6-Feb-2001
An English court had power to make a restraining order against the disposal of assets pending an application for confiscation pursuant to a US order. This applied even if the US original judgment predated the date on which the US was added to the . .
Appeal fromGovernment of the United States of America v Barnette and Montgomery (No 2) HL 22-Jul-2004
The applicant sought to resist orders for the return to the US of what were alleged to be the proceeds (direct or indirect) of a fraud committed there. She had been in contempt of the court in the US and was a fugitive here. She complained that the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 January 2021; Ref: scu.180050