The defendants resisted extradition to the US to face charges of conspiracy to murder US citizens, saying that as suspected terrorists the likely prison conditions in which they would be held would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Held: The applications failed. There is no one standard applicable across the world as to what would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. The prison regime would be severe, but it would not be a breach of the applicants human rights to be extradited to face it: ‘Whether the high Article 3 threshold for inhuman and degrading treatment is crossed depends on the facts of the particular case. There is no common standard for what does or does not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment throughout the many different countries of the world.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Scott Baker, Mr Justice David Clarke
Citations:
[2009] EWHC 2068 (Admin), Times 14-Oct-2009
Links:
Statutes:
Extradition Act 1989, European Convention on Human Rights 3 6
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In Re Khalid Al-Fawwaz (Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus) (on Appeal From a Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division) HL 17-Dec-2001
The fact that a crime for which extradition was sought was extra-territorial one to the country making the request, was not enough to counter the application. The schedule required the person to be ‘accused or have been convicted of an extradition . .
Cited – Soering 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 . .
Cited – Warren, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another Admn 14-Mar-2003
Hale LJ said that it would not generally be unjust to send someone back to a country face a fair process to determine whether or not he is fit to face trial adding: ‘I accept that it may be wrong or oppressive to do so if the inevitable result will . .
Cited – Wellington Regina, (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 10-Dec-2008
It was sought to extradite the defendant to face trial for two alleged murders. He now challenged the order for his extradition saying that his treatment in Missouri would amount to inhuman or degrading punishment in that if convicted he would face . .
Cited – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
Cited – Deya v The Government of Kenya 2008
. .
Cited – Ahmad and Aswat v United States of America Admn 30-Nov-2006
The defendants appealed orders for their extradition. They were suspected of terrorist offences, and feared that instead of facing a trial, they would be placed before a military commission.
Held: The appeals failed. The court had diplomatic . .
Cited by:
Cited – Bary and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 19-Mar-2010
The applicants, incarcerated at Long Lartin pending extradition or deportation, challenged a decision further restricting their movements within the prison. All were unconvicted, and all but one were suspected of terrorist crimes. The changes were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Extradition, Human Rights
Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.372683