Kirkwood v The United Kingdom: ECHR 12 Mar 1984

(Admissibility – Commission) The claimant, a United States national, said that the proceedings for his extradition from the United Kingdom to the United States infringed article 6(3)(d), because he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses against him in the United Kingdom.
Held: Although ‘the tasks of the Magistrates’ Court included the assessment of whether or not there was, on the basis of the evidence, the outline of a case to answer against the applicant’ and ‘[t]his necessarily involved a certain, limited, examination of the issues which would be decisive in the applicant’s ultim[at]e trial’, nevertheless, ‘these proceedings did not in themselves form part of the determination of the applicant’s guilt or innocence, which will be the subject of separate proceedings in the United States which may be expected to conform to standards of fairness equivalent to the requirements of article 6, including the presumption of innocence, notwithstanding the committal proceedings’. In these circumstances ‘the committal proceedings did not form part of or constitute the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention’
Article 1 of the Convention: The undertaking given by High Contracting Parties in respect of everyone within their jurisdiction extends, in the Article 3 sphere, to a duty not to expose anyone to an irremediable situation of objective danger, even outside their jurisdiction.
Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention: Because Article 2 authorises capital punishment, pursuant to the law and a court sentence, this may create a long period of incertitude for the convicted person during the appeal proceedings in an elaborate judicial system. However, it cannot be held that this long period of uncertainty (the’death row phenomenon’) falls outside the notion of inhuman treatment (Article 3).
The terms of Article 2 do not support the contention that if a State were to fail to require binding assurances from the Stale requesting extradition that the death penalty would not be inflicted, this would constitute treatment- contrary to Article 3.
Article 3 of the Convention; Factors to be considered in assessing whether the long period of uncertainty experienced by the person condemned to death, during the appeal procedures (the ‘death row phenomenon’) amounts to inhuman treatment: the importance of the appeal system designed to protect the right to life, delays caused by the backlog of cases before the appeal courts, the possibility of a commutation of sentence by very reason of the duration of detention on ‘death row’.
Article 6 of the Convention: This provision does not apply to a court’s examination of an extradition request from a foreign State, even if the Court carries out an assessment of whether there is an outline of a criminal case to answer against the applicant.

Citations:

10479/83, [1984] ECHR 19

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6(3)(d)

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedLukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland SC 23-May-2012
Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for the extradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Extradition

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.451302

Brown (Formerly Bajinya) v HMP Belmarsh: Admn 13 Mar 2007

The prisoner complained at the extension of his detention pending proceedings for extradition to Rwanda, as authorised by the Secretary of State.
Held: The Home Secretary had certified that special arrangements existed as required under section 194, and he therefore had had power to state also that the period required for delivery of an extradition request, and the associated detention, was extended from 45 to 95 days.

Judges:

Latham LJ, Lloyd Jones J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 498 (Admin), Times 15-May-2007, [2007] QB 838, [2007] 2 All ER 633, [2007] 2 WLR 1184

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 194(4)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.250309

Hilali v Governor of HMP Whitemoor and others: Admn 25 Apr 2007

The claimant had been in prison pending removal after his resistance to a European Extradition Warrant had failed. Subsequent developments in the case against him in Spain suggested that the case against him might now fail. He sought a writ of habeas corpus.
Held: ‘the right approach to this issue is to ask whether, in the light of the discovery that the prosecution will not be able to rely on the evidence of telephone intercepts, the basis of the extradition order is undermined to such an extent that return (and continued detention prior to return) would now be unlawful. ‘ The order could not now stand.

Judges:

Smith LJ, Irwin J

Citations:

Times 06-Jun-2007, [2007] EWHC 939 (Admin), [2007] 3 WLR 621, [2007] 3 All ER 422

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003, Framework Decision of the Council of European Union and the surrender procedures between Member States 2002 (2002/584/JHA).

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoHilali v Central Court of Criminal Proceedings Number 5 and Another Admn 16-Nov-2006
. .
CitedPinto v Governor of Brixton Prison and another Admn 2004
The Court was asked to grant Habeas Corpus on the ground that the European Arrest Warrant received in respect of the defendant was ‘fundamentally deficient’. At the initial hearing, the district judge had remanded the applicant in custody to await . .
CitedNikonovs v HM Prison Brixton and Republic of Latvia Admn 2-Nov-2005
The defendant argued that a failure to observe procedures under the Act resulted in his detention being unlawful and therefore susceptible to judicial review. He had not been brought before the appropriate court as soon as practicable after his . .
CitedOffice of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and others HL 17-Nov-2005
The defendant resisted extradition to Brussels saying that the offence had been committed in part in England. He had absconded and been convicted. Application was made for his return to serve his sentence. The offences associated with organisation . .
See AlsoHilali v The National Court, Madrid and Another (No 5) Admn 26-May-2006
Appeal against an extradition order for his extradition to Spain. The court was concerned with an issue of ‘extraneous circumstances’ arising under, respectively, section 6(1) of the 1989 Act and section 13 of the 2003 Act. . .

Cited by:

See AlsoHilali v Central Court of Criminal Proceedings National Court (Madrid No 5) Admn 15-Jun-2007
. .
Appeal fromHilali, Re; Regina (Hilali) v Governor of Whitewall Prison and Another HL 30-Jan-2008
The applicant had been detained pending his extradition. He complained that that continued detention became unlawful after fundamantal changes in the case. The telephone intercepts which were the basis of the extradition had been ruled unlawful and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Prisons

Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.251468

United States of America v Dempsey: Admn 6 Jul 2018

Crime – Common law offence – Perverting course of justice – Requirements of offence – Whether committed by lying to police

Judges:

Gross LJ, William Davis J

Citations:

[2018] EWHC 1724 (Admin), [2018] 1 WLR 110, [2018] WLR(D) 420

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Metcalf, Denton, Foster 26-May-2021
Public Inquiry is not In the Course of Justice
(Crown Court at Manchester) A retired solicitor and two retired police officers faced trial charged with doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice. They were said to have proposed alterations to statements of police . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Crime

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.619929

ZZ v Ministry of Justice Lithuania: Admn 17 Nov 2014

Appeal against the decision to order the appellant’s extradition to Lithuania, pursuant to a conviction arrest warrant in order to serve the balance of a 2 year sentence of imprisonment, that is to say 1 year and 10 months

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 4285 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.541619

United States of America v McVey: 19 Nov 1992

(Supreme Court of Canada) La Forest J said: ‘Consistent with the general principle that extradition laws should be liberally construed so as to achieve the purposes of the Treaty, a much less technical approach to extradition warrants and to common law warrants has been adopted. .’

Judges:

La Forest J

Citations:

[1992] 3 SCR 475, (1992), 97 DLR (4th) 193, [1993] 1 WWR 289, (1992) 77 CCC (3d) 1, (1992), 73 BCLR (2d) 145

Links:

Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

CitedNorris v United States of America and others HL 12-Mar-2008
The detainee appealed an order for extradition to the USA, saying that the offence (price-fixing) was not one known to English common law. The USA sought his extradition under the provisions of the Sherman Act.
Held: It was not, and it would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.270745

Trepac v County Court In Trencin Slovak Republic: Admn 22 Nov 2006

The court heard an application for an extradition order from the Slovak Republic, a category 1 territory which had imposed a single sentence in respect of two offences which appeared to have been committed on the same day: attempted murder and carrying a concealed weapon.
Held: An argument that the European arrest warrant did not comply with the requirements of section 2(6)(e) because it did not contain an apportionment of the total sentence to each of the offences was rejected. The form of the warrant did not require the specification of a separate sentence for each separate offence.

Judges:

Keene J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 3346 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedPilecki v Circuit Court of Legnica, Poland HL 6-Feb-2008
The defendant appealed against an extradition order made under a European Arrest Warrant to ensure that he served a sentence of imprisonment in Poland. The warrant was in respect of several sentences, some of which were for more and some for less . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.249153

Bermingham and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office: QBD 21 Feb 2006

Prosecution to protect defendant not available

The claimants faced extradition to the US. They said that the respondent had infringed their human rights by deciding not to prosecute them in the UK. There was no mutuality in the Act under which they were to be extradited.
Held: The Director had a discretion as to whether to prosecute. He had no duty to consider the place of trial as a way of protecting the defendants’ human rights: ‘The request to investigate in effect invited the Director [of the Serious Fraud Office] to constitute himself the judge of the proper forum for the defendants’ trial and to decide the issue in favour of trial here and not the United States: and thereby to pre-empt the statutory extradition process. Such a function cannot conceivably be found in s. 1(3) of the [Criminal Justice Act 1987].’ The section created only a power to investigate. To take it further would be fanciful and would usurp the role of the judicary. As to the extraditions themselves the Home Secretary had no remaining discretion as to whether or not to authorise extradition. He had a duty to do so. The case had substantial connections with the US and was properly triable there.
In the absence of a wholly exceptional case, the court would not intervene to examine by way of judicial review a discretionary decision by the Director of the SFO to investigate or not to investigate fraud.

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws, Mr Justice Ouseley

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 200 (Admin), Times 24-Feb-2006, [2006] 3 All ER 239, [2007] QB 727, [2006] UKHRR 450, [2006] ACD 55, [2007] 2 WLR 635

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 103 108, Criminal Justice Act 1987 1(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire HL 28-Apr-1987
No General ty of Care Owed by Police
The mother of a victim of the Yorkshire Ripper claimed in negligence against the police alleging that they had failed to satisfy their duty to exercise all reasonable care and skill to apprehend the perpetrator of the murders and to protect members . .
CitedRegina v Sectretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Razgar etc HL 17-Jun-2004
The claimant resisted removal after failure of his claim for asylum, saying that this would have serious adverse consequences to his mental health, infringing his rights under article 8. He appealed the respondent’s certificate that his claim was . .
CitedRegina 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 . .
CitedGovernment of Canada v Aronson; Director of Public Prosecutions v Aronson HL 20-Jul-1989
The Canadian Government asked for the arrest of the defendant and for his return to Canada to face 78 allegations in Canada. The magistrate had determined that there was sufficient evidence in 66 cases. The detainee said that 69 offences were not . .
CitedRegina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .

Cited by:

CitedAhmad 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 . .
CitedMcKinnon v USA and Another Admn 3-Apr-2007
The defendant appealed an order for his extradition. He had used his computer in London to access remotely defence and other government computers in the USA, and deleted files and copied others onto his own computer. He had been offered a deal if he . .
CitedCorner House Research and Campaign Against Arms Trade, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office and Another Admn 10-Apr-2008
The defendant had had responsibility to investigate and if necessary prosecute a company suspected of serious offences of bribery and corruption in the conduct of contract negotiations. The investigation had been stopped, alledgedly at the . .
CitedNorris v United States of America and others HL 12-Mar-2008
The detainee appealed an order for extradition to the USA, saying that the offence (price-fixing) was not one known to English common law. The USA sought his extradition under the provisions of the Sherman Act.
Held: It was not, and it would . .
CitedCorner House Research and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Serious Fraud Office HL 30-Jul-2008
SFO Director’s decisions reviewable
The director succeeded on his appeal against an order declaring unlawful his decision to discontinue investigations into allegations of bribery. The Attorney-General had supervisory duties as to the exercise of the duties by the Director. It had . .
CitedMcKinnon, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Home Affairs Admn 31-Jul-2009
Assurances for Extradition
Extradition of the defendant was sought to the US to face allegations of hacking into defence computers there. He said this would infringe his article 3 rights, saying that he suffered Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Held: The application failed. US . .
CitedNorris v Government of United States of America SC 24-Feb-2010
The defendant faced extradition to the USA on charges of the obstruction of justice. He challenged the extradition on the basis that it would interfere with his article 8 rights to family life, given that the offence was merely ancillary, the result . .
CitedBH and Another v The Lord Advocate and Another SC 20-Jun-2012
The appellants wished to resist their extradition to the US to face criminal charges for drugs. As a married couple that said that the extraditions would interfere with their children’s rights to family life.
Held: The appeals against . .
CitedShaw, Regina (on The Application of) v Cheshire Constabulary Admn 23-Jul-2015
The claimant sought judicial review of a decision not to prosecute, now renewing his application for leave.
Held: Leave was refused: ‘The police have investigated and have come to a conclusion. The courts have set their face against reviewing . .
CitedJJ Management Consulting Llp and Others v Revenue and Customs CA 22-Jun-2020
HMRC has power to conduct informal investigation
The taxpayer, resident here, but with substantial oversea business interests, challenged the conduct of an informal investigation of his businesses under the 2005 Act, saying that HMRC, as a creature of statute, are only permitted to do that which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Criminal Practice, Human Rights

Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.239881

Lisowski v Regional Court of Bialystok (Poland): Admn 28 Nov 2006

The defendant resisted extradition for a fraud prosecution brought 11 years after the relevant events which occurred in 1995. He had come to England in 2000, and the first he heard of the accusation was when he was arrested in September 2006. It was not suggested that he had deliberately fled the prosecution.
Held: The court assumed that the Polish courts had an appropriate abuse of process jurisdiction and would, in accordance with Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention, examine the question whether by reason of delay it would be unjust to allow the prosecution to proceed. Even so, before the court could rely on the proposition that the requesting state was best placed to examine the abuse of process issue, the requesting state, Walker J said, ‘must produce some evidence that there was good reason to think that there would be a basis for rejecting an abuse of process application.’ Keene LJ agreed: ‘Section 14 of the 2003 Act imposes a duty upon this court to make its own decision as to whether it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite someone by reason of the passage of time. The fact that the requesting state is a signatory to the ECHR is a relevant factor but I do not myself see it as being determinative of this issue in the absence of other evidence about the legal processes in that state. After all, states do not always comply with their Convention obligations in every case. It is a matter of record that many signatory states have been found to have breached Article 6 of that convention from time to time.’

Judges:

Walker J, Keene LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 3227 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 14, European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKrzyzowski v Circuit Court In Gliwice, Poland Admn 23-Nov-2007
Extradition of the defendant to Poland was sought, the court saying he had fled his trial for burglaries in 1999. The defendant argued that his extradition would now be unfair.
Held: The judge was right to hold that his ruling of deliberate . .
CitedKrzyzowski v Circuit Court In Gliwice, Poland Admn 23-Nov-2007
Extradition of the defendant to Poland was sought, the court saying he had fled his trial for burglaries in 1999. The defendant argued that his extradition would now be unfair.
Held: The judge was right to hold that his ruling of deliberate . .
CitedGomes v Trinidad and Tobago HL 29-Apr-2009
Each appellant challenged orders for their extradition, saying that the delay had been too prolonged, and that detention in Trinidad’s appalling jails would be an infringement of their human rights.
Held: The House had to consider its own . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 06 December 2022; Ref: scu.249150

Amoako, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 24 Feb 2006

The defendant gave notice to appeal but the respondent said it was out of time by one day. The defendant said that the decision itself had not been made until after normal business hours on the relevant day, and should therefore be treated as having been made on the following day which would validate the appeal.
Held: There was nothing to suggest the need for such an interpretation.

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1572 (Admin), [2006] 4 All ER 230

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 26

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.263469

Krzyzowski v Circuit Court In Gliwice, Poland: Admn 23 Nov 2007

Extradition of the defendant to Poland was sought, the court saying he had fled his trial for burglaries in 1999. The defendant argued that his extradition would now be unfair.
Held: The judge was right to hold that his ruling of deliberate flight concluded the question of delay unless it could be said that the circumstances of this case were ‘most exceptional’. The defendant had not established abuse of process here.

Judges:

Longmore LJ, Mitting J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2754 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedKakis v Government of the Republic of Cyprus HL 1978
Kakis’ extradition was sought by Cyprus in relation to an EOKA killing in April 1973. Although a warrant for Kakis’ arrest had been issued that very night, he had escaped into the mountains and remained hidden for 15 months. Subsequently, he settled . .
CitedWiejak v Olsztyn Circuit Court of Poland Admn 27-Jul-2007
. .
CitedLa Torre v Italy Admn 20-Jun-2007
Laws LJ considered the decision in Kakis and said: ‘All the circumstances must be considered in order to judge whether the unjust/oppressive test is met. Culpable delay on the part of the State may certainly colour that judgment and may sometimes be . .
CitedRegina v Osman (No 4) 1992
Where a defendant’s own conduct was taken into account in considering any delay in extradition proceedings, the court should look also at delay by the prosecutor. In borderline cases, where the accused himself is not to blame, culpable delay by the . .
CitedOgonowski v District Court of Bialystok, Poland Admn 2007
. .
CitedKing’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and Another Admn 20-Aug-2004
The prisoner had argued that the alleged offence underlying the application for his extradition to Belgium had been committed in part in England, and was therefore not extradictable. The prosecutor appealed.
Held: Part I of the 2003 Act was . .
CitedLisowski v Regional Court of Bialystok (Poland) Admn 28-Nov-2006
The defendant resisted extradition for a fraud prosecution brought 11 years after the relevant events which occurred in 1995. He had come to England in 2000, and the first he heard of the accusation was when he was arrested in September 2006. It was . .
CitedLisowski v Regional Court of Bialystok (Poland) Admn 28-Nov-2006
The defendant resisted extradition for a fraud prosecution brought 11 years after the relevant events which occurred in 1995. He had come to England in 2000, and the first he heard of the accusation was when he was arrested in September 2006. It was . .
CitedMitoi v Government of Romania Admn 7-Jun-2006
Where a question arises, under section 20(3) or 85(3) of the Act, as to whether a person deliberately absented himself from his trial, that is a matter which the requesting state has to prove to a criminal standard. . .
CitedOffice of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and others HL 17-Nov-2005
The defendant resisted extradition to Brussels saying that the offence had been committed in part in England. He had absconded and been convicted. Application was made for his return to serve his sentence. The offences associated with organisation . .

Cited by:

CitedGomes v Trinidad and Tobago HL 29-Apr-2009
Each appellant challenged orders for their extradition, saying that the delay had been too prolonged, and that detention in Trinidad’s appalling jails would be an infringement of their human rights.
Held: The House had to consider its own . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.261497

Pilecki v Circuit Court of Legnica, Poland: Admn 31 Jul 2007

Extradition was sought of the defendant to Poland. The defendant challenged the validity of the European Arrest Warrant, saying that it listed offences for which he was sentenced to less than four month’s imprisonment, and that sufficient particulars had not been given. The court had aggregated the sentences.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The requirements of the 2003 Act had been satisfied. However the court certified a question for the House of Lords: ‘Does section 65(3)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 require it to be shown that:
(a) a final sentence of imprisonment of four months or greater was imposed in respect of each offence, taken on its own, that is referred to in the European arrest warrant, or is it sufficient to show that:
(b) a sentence of four months or greater was imposed in respect of multiple offences, provided that such offences were the offences specified in the warrant and that the sentence arrived at by the court was an aggregated sentence reflecting the total criminality?’

Judges:

Leveson LJ and Stanley Burnton J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2080 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromPilecki v Circuit Court of Legnica, Poland HL 6-Feb-2008
The defendant appealed against an extradition order made under a European Arrest Warrant to ensure that he served a sentence of imprisonment in Poland. The warrant was in respect of several sentences, some of which were for more and some for less . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.259642

Wiejak v Olsztyn Circuit Court of Poland: Admn 27 Jul 2007

Judges:

Sedley LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2123 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKrzyzowski v Circuit Court In Gliwice, Poland Admn 23-Nov-2007
Extradition of the defendant to Poland was sought, the court saying he had fled his trial for burglaries in 1999. The defendant argued that his extradition would now be unfair.
Held: The judge was right to hold that his ruling of deliberate . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.259643

Hilali v Central Court of Criminal Proceedings National Court (Madrid No 5): Admn 15 Jun 2007

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1984 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoHilali v Governor of HMP Whitemoor and others Admn 25-Apr-2007
The claimant had been in prison pending removal after his resistance to a European Extradition Warrant had failed. Subsequent developments in the case against him in Spain suggested that the case against him might now fail. He sought a writ of . .
See AlsoHilali v The National Court, Madrid and Another (No 5) Admn 26-May-2006
Appeal against an extradition order for his extradition to Spain. The court was concerned with an issue of ‘extraneous circumstances’ arising under, respectively, section 6(1) of the 1989 Act and section 13 of the 2003 Act. . .
See AlsoHilali v Central Court of Criminal Proceedings Number 5 and Another Admn 16-Nov-2006
. .

Cited by:

See AlsoHilali, Re; Regina (Hilali) v Governor of Whitewall Prison and Another HL 30-Jan-2008
The applicant had been detained pending his extradition. He complained that that continued detention became unlawful after fundamantal changes in the case. The telephone intercepts which were the basis of the extradition had been ruled unlawful and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 04 December 2022; Ref: scu.258798

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Ejaz: CA 7 Dec 1993

The question was whether the Secretary of State was entitled to treat a woman, who had obtained naturalisation as the wife of a British citizen, as an illegal entrant on the basis that her husband later turned out not in fact to be a British citizen.
Held: The Secretary was not entitled to treat her citizenship as a nullity. A registered or naturalised citizen is a British citizen and his Citizenship certificate remains valid until it is withdrawn under a s40 order.
Stuart-Smith LJ: ‘A person who has acquired British citizenship by registration or certificate of naturalisation can . . be deprived of his citizenship as a result of conduct that led to the grant of registration or naturalisation, or because of certain conduct thereafter. Subsequent conduct is dealt with in section 40(3) and consists of (a) disloyalty or disaffection to the Queen, (b) trading or communicating with the enemy in time of war or (c) imprisonment for twelve months or more within five years of the date when the person became a British citizen. We are not concerned with this subsection.’

Judges:

Stuart-Smith LJ

Citations:

Independent 22-Dec-1993, Times 07-Dec-1993, [1994] 2 All ER 436, [1994] QB 496, [1994] 2 WLR 534

Statutes:

British Nationality Act 1981 40

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Naheed Ejaz QBD 23-Jul-1993
Using somebody else’s British passport, the applicant’s husband had masqueraded as a British citizen. The applicant had applied under section 6(2) of the 1981 Act for naturalisation as a British citizen on the ground that she was married to a . .

Cited by:

CitedHicks, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 13-Dec-2005
The claimant, an Australian, presently held by the US as a suspected terrorist in Guantanamo Bay sought to be registered as a British Citizen, saying he was entitled to registration as of right.
Held: The past behaviour of an applicant was not . .
CitedHysaj and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 21-Dec-2017
The court was asked whether the misrepresentations made by the appellants in their applications for United Kingdom citizenship made the grant of that citizenship a nullity, rather than rendering them liable to be deprived of that citizenship under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Extradition

Updated: 01 December 2022; Ref: scu.87984

United States of America v Cobb: 5 Apr 2001

Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Fundamental justice – Remedies — Extradition — Whether considerations relating to fundamental justice engaged at committal stage of extradition process — Whether extradition judge ought to have waited for ministerial decision on surrender before granting stay — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 24 — Extradition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-23, s. 9(3).
The USA had indicted a large number of defendants, including the two Canadian appellants, on mail fraud charges. Many had submitted voluntarily to the Court in Pennsylvania and on sentencing one of them the trial judge had said ‘I want you to believe me that as to those people who don’t come in and cooperate and if we get them extradited and they are found guilty, as far as I am concerned they are going to get the absolute maximum jail sentence that the law permits me to give.’
About a week before the Canadian extradition hearing the American prosecuting attorney was interviewed on Canadian television and said: ‘I have told some of these individuals, ‘look, you can come down and you can put this behind you by serving your time in prison and making restitution to the victims, or you can wind up serving a great deal longer sentence under much more stringent conditions’ and describe those conditions to them.’
Asked by the interviewer ‘How would you describe those conditions?’, the attorney replied: ‘You are going to be the boyfriend of a very bad man if you wait out your extradition’. That was understood by the Court to mean that they would be subject to homosexual rape. Asked then: ‘And does that have much of an impact on these people?’, the attorney answered: ‘Well, out of the 89 people we have indicted so far, approximately 55 of them have said, ‘We give up”.
Held: The appela was alloed, and te extradition process was stayed.
Arbour J said: ‘By placing undue pressure on Canadian citizens to forego due legal process in Canada, the foreign state has disentitled itself from pursuing its recourse before the courts and attempting to show why extradition should legally proceed. The intimidation bore directly upon the very proceedings before the extradition judge . . [The judge] was also correct in concluding as he did that this was one of the clearest of cases where to proceed further with the extradition hearing would violate ‘those fundamental principles of justice which underlie the community’s sense of fair play and decency’ (Keyowski [1988] 1 SCR 657, 658-659), since the requesting state in the proceedings, represented by the Attorney General of Canada, had not repudiated the statements of some of its officials that an unconscionable price would be paid by the appellants for having insisted on exercising their rights under Canadian law.’

As to the argument based on the appellants not in fact having been dissuaded from exercising their procedural rights: ‘I find no merit in this argument. It may very well be that the threats of the severe and illegal consequences that may follow their resistance to extradition may have made the appellants more, not less, determined to resist their surrender. Frankly, this would have been quite understandable. The abuse of process here consists in the attempt to interfere with the due process of the court. The success or failure of that interference is immaterial.’

Judges:

McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour JJ

Citations:

[2001] 1 SCR 587, (2001) 197 DLR (4th) 46, (2001) 152 CCC (3d) 270, (2001) 41 CR (5th) 81, (2001) 81 CRR (2d) 226, (2001) 145 OAC 3

Links:

Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

CitedMcKinnon v The United States of America and Anotherr HL 30-Jul-2008
The appellant sought to avoid extradition to the US. He had hacked into 97 US government computers. He argued that the punishment he might expect in the US was completely disproportionate to the offence, and that he had been misled into entering . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Constitutional

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.272792

United States of America v Shulman: 5 Apr 2001

Canlii (Supreme Court of Canada) Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Mobility rights — Right to remain in Canada – Extradition – Whether mobility rights engaged at committal stage of extradition process — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 6(1).

Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Fundamental justice — Extradition — Whether considerations relating to fundamental justice engaged at committal stage of extradition process — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7.

Extradition — Extradition process — Scope of Charter jurisdiction of extradition judge at committal stage — Whether mobility rights and considerations of fundamental justice engaged at committal stage of extradition process — Whether extradition judge competent to grant Charter remedies — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 6, 7, 24 — Extradition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-23, s. 9(3).

Extradition — Extradition process — Remedies — Charter jurisdiction — Abuse of process — Role of appellate courts.

Extradition — Evidence — Fresh evidence — Fugitive seeking to adduce fresh evidence in Court of Appeal — Evidence including threats uttered by U.S. prosecutor — Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing fugitive’s motion to adduce fresh evidence — Whether fresh evidence revealed abuse of process — If so, whether stay of proceedings should be granted.

Extradition — Evidence — Admissibility — Affidavit evidence referring to fugitive’s allegedly unlawful activities provided by alleged co-conspirators — Alleged co-conspirators awaiting sentence when affidavit material prepared and sworn — Fugitive claiming that co-conspirators’ evidence infringed principles of fundamental justice and constituted abuse of process — Whether extradition judge and Court of Appeal correct in refusing to exclude affidavit evidence — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 24.

Judges:

McLachlin C.J. and Gonthier, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie and Arbour JJ

Citations:

2001 SCC 21, [2001] 1 SCR 616, (2001) 197 DLR (4th) 69, (2001) 152 CCC (3d) 294, (2001) 81 CRR (2d) 245, (2001) 41 CR (5th) 100, (2001) 145 OAC 201

Links:

Canlii

Jurisdiction:

Canada

Cited by:

CitedMcKinnon v The United States of America and Anotherr HL 30-Jul-2008
The appellant sought to avoid extradition to the US. He had hacked into 97 US government computers. He argued that the punishment he might expect in the US was completely disproportionate to the offence, and that he had been misled into entering . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.272793

Urru v Governor of HM Prison, Brixton: 22 May 2000

The prisoner resisted his extradition to Italy. The court examined documentation received from Italy: ‘That language may indicate that the applicant is already regarded as unlawfully at large and therefore liable to arrest which, if so, would of course support the government’s case. But it may, as it seems to me, be authority to arrest him when he has been found and when he has been handed a copy of the order, which would suggest that he was not unlawfully at large until those steps had been accomplished. In the absence of expert evidence of Italian law I do not know how the magistrate could, or how we can, choose between those hypotheses.’

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ

Citations:

Unreported, 22 May 2000, CO/4009/99

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMariotti v Government of Italy and others Admn 2-Dec-2005
The extraditee had been convicted in his absence in Italy having fled to avoid the trial. He complained that the trial process had been unfair and the evidence against him weak.
Held: The court’s duty was not to investigate the evidential . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.237702