Castillo v The Kingdom of Spain, the Governor of HM Prison Belmarsh: Admn 13 Jul 2004

In an application to extradite the claimant, the court heard a complaint that the description of the conduct alleged in the request was not a fair description of that conduct. Two of the offences charged were of an attempt to cause really serious bodily injury to a police officer by the explosion of an explosive substance and the alleged murder of that police officer.
Held: The description of the alleged conduct that was set out in the request was not proper, accurate or fair, in that it did not make clear that the policeman was in his house at the time and not near the car under which an explosive was being placed, or that the device was not a timed device but one which required a fuse to be lit. The application for habeas corpus therefore succeeded in relation to those two charges: (Thomas LJ) ‘….[I]t is in my view very important that a state requesting extradition from the UK fairly and properly describes the conduct alleged, as the accuracy and fairness of the description plays such an important role in the decisions that have to be made by the Secretary of State and the Court in the UK. Scrutiny of the description of the conduct alleged to constitute the offence alleged, where as here a question is raised about its accuracy, is not an enquiry into evidential sufficiency; the court is not concerned to assess the quality or sufficiency of the evidence in support of the conduct alleged, but it is concerned, if materials are put before it which call into question the accuracy and fairness of the description, to see if the description of the conduct alleged is fair and accurate.’

Judges:

Justice Silber Lord Justice Thomas

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1672 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoCastillo v Kingdom of Spain and Another Admn 12-Jun-2004
. .

Cited by:

CitedKadre v Government of France and Another Admn 29-Jul-2005
The applicant sought habeas corpus to prevent his extradition to France.
Held: The English court was not to be concerned with facts underlying an extradition request. The laws of France were framed differently, but the facts alleged would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198716