Bonalumi v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 1985

In the course of extradition proceedings, an order was obtained under the 1879 Act. The defendant sought to appeal against the order, and applied to the Court of Appeal.
Held: The procedure under the 1879 Act was in the course of criminal proceedings (the eventual case in Sweden). The Court of Appeal Civil Division, by virtue of its constitution under the 1981 Act, had no jurisdiction in criminal matters, and could not hear the case.
[1985] QB 675, [1985] 1 All ER 797
Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1879 9, Supreme Court Act 1981 18(1)(a)
England and Wales
AppliedEx parte Alice Woodhall CA 8-May-1888
Extradition proceedings are in their nature criminal proceedings. Lindley LJ said: ‘Can we say that the application in the present case is not an application in a criminal cause or matter? I think that in substance it certainly is. Its whole object . .
AppliedRe Clifford and O’Sullivan HL 1921
Military tribunals are ‘not courts at all, but mere committees of officers meeting to inform the mind and carry out the orders of the Commander-in-Chief’. . .
AppliedAmand v Home Secretary and Minister of Defence of Royal Netherlands Government HL 1943
A Dutch serviceman who had been arrested for desertion and brought before a magistrate who ordered him to be handed over to the Dutch military authorities under the Allied Forces Act 1940. An application for habeas corpus was rejected by a . .
CitedMalone v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis (No 2) ChD 28-Feb-1979
The court considered the lawfulness of telephone tapping. The issue arose following a trial in which the prosecution had admitted the interception of the plaintiff’s telephone conversations under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State. The . .
Not FollowedRegina v Grossman CA 1981
An application was made against Barclays Bank in London to obtain inspection of an account held at a branch of the bank in the Isle of Man.
Held: The Civil Division of the Court of Appeal which determined the application was later held to have . .
CitedChief Constable of Kent v V 1982
In order to obtain an injunction with respect to property in the possession of a defendant, the right sought to be enforced need not be a proprietary right of the claimant, nor a right for the benefit of the claimant itself. (Slade LJ dissenting) . .
CitedChief Constable of Hampshire v A Ltd CA 1984
The court explained Chief Constable of Kent -v- V: ‘jurisdiction to grant an injunction on the application of the Chief Constable in that case existed only if he could be found to have a sufficient interest in making the application, and they appear . .

Cited by:
CitedSociete Eram Shipping Company Limited and others v Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Compagnie Internationale de Navigation HL 12-Jun-2003
The appeal concerned a final third party debt order (formerly a garnishee order). A judgment in France was registered here for enforcement. That jurisdiction was now challenged.
Held: A third party debt order is a proprietary remedy operating . .
CitedIn Re O (Restraint Order: Disclosure of Assets) 1991
A restraint order had been made against O in an action under the 1988 Act. He sought a variation. On the application of the prosecutor he was ordered to file an affidavit of means. He sought to appeal, but the prosecutor said no appeal lay.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.183547