Category: Extradition

Cosar v HMP Wandsworth and Others: Admn 11 May 2020

Two applications for habeas corpus or, in the alternative, for a direction that they be treated as applications for permission to apply for judicial review – confinement to prison pending extradition to Romania – delay for Coronavirus

Citations:

[2020] EWHC 1142 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.650731

Pomiechowski v District Court of Legunica, Poland: Admn 15 Jun 2011

The three defendants wished to appeal against orders for their extradition to Poland. They had been arrested, and while in custody had used the prison’s support services, who failed to serve their notices in time.
Held: The notices were ineffective. The Court was given no discretion to extend time for service.

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 2060 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Lukaszewski 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 . .
See Also – Pomiechowski v The District Court In Legnica, 59-220 Poland Admn 9-Nov-2012
. .
Appeal from – VB and Others v Westminster Magistrates SC 5-Nov-2014
Extraditions to follow normal open justice rules
Application was made by Rwanda for the extradition of four individuals to face crimes said to have been committed during their civil war. Witnesses were prepared to give evidence but only in private and not being seen by the representatives of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.459712

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 notes from the US government guaranteeing trial before an ordinary court, and that they would not be designated enemy combatants. Those reassurances were from the government and not from counsel in court: ‘acts touching only the internal affairs of the United States, cannot in my judgment begin to constitute a premise from which this court should conclude that the Diplomatic Notes will not be fully honoured.’
‘The assurances in the notes were given by a mature democracy. The United States was a state with which the United Kingdom had entered into five substantial treaties on extradition over a period of more than 150 years. Over this period there was no instance of any assurance having been dishonoured.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Walker

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2927 (Admin), Times 05-Dec-2006, [2007] ACD 54, [2007] UKHRR 525, [2007] HRLR 8

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003, European Convention on Human Rights 3 5 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Armah v Government of Ghana and Another HL 1968
The appellant was committed under 1881 Act to await his return to Ghana to face trial on corruption charges. He applied for a writ of habeas corpus contending inter alia that it would be unjust and oppressive to return him since he would be liable . .
Cited – Welsh and Thrasher v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another Admn 21-Feb-2006
Ouseley J: ‘First, if there had been a routine disregard of the specialty rule, I would have expected that over the decades of extradition to the US from the UK, and in particular from those countries with which the US enjoys a land frontier, the UK . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Launder HL 13-Mar-1997
The question arose as to whether or not the decision of the Secretary of State to extradite the applicant to Hong Kong would have amounted to a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Although the Convention was not at that time in force . .
Cited – Lodhi v Governor of HMP Brixton and Government of United Arab Emirates Admn 13-Mar-2001
. .
Cited – Serbeh v Governor of HM Prison Brixton 31-Oct-2002
Kennedy LJ said: ‘[T]here is (still) a fundamental assumption that the requesting state is acting in good faith.’ . .
Cited – A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
Evidence from 3rd Party Torture Inadmissible
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
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 by:

Cited – Bary and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 7-Aug-2009
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 . .
At Court of Appeal – Ahmad and Aswat v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Jun-2007
(Statement of Facts) The applicants resisted extradition from the respondent country to the USA to face allegations of terrorist related crime. . .
At Court of Appeal – Ahmad And Aswat v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Jul-2007
(Statement of Facts) To resist an extradition application to America to stand trial on various federal charges, the appellants claimed that if they were extradited there was a real prospect that they would be made subject to a determination by the . .
Cited – RB (Algeria) and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department; OO (Jordan) v Same; MT (Algeria) v Same HL 18-Feb-2009
Fairness of SIAC procedures
Each defendant was to be deported for fear of involvement in terrorist activities, but feared that if returned to their home countries, they would be tortured. The respondent had obtained re-assurances from the destination governments that this . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 22 November 2022; Ref: scu.246753

McKinnon 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 agreed to go to the US voluntarily. That offer had been withdrawn, and the defendant argued there was an abuse of process.
Held: Though an englsh court might disapprove of the offer made, this did not amount to an abuse.

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ, Goldring J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 762 (Admin), Times 19-Apr-2007

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 108

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In Re Levin; Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Levin HL 10-Apr-1997
The applicant had been detained pending extradition to the United States on charges of fraud. He said the evidence would not have been sufficient to justify his committal for trial.
Held: The Francis case did not establish that the 1984 Act . .
Cited – Office 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 – Norris, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 24-Feb-2006
The claimant challenged his extradition to the US saying that it was wrong for the US to continue to be listed as a designated country for extradition under section 84.
Held: The fact that the US had not yet ratified the treaty under which a . .
Cited – 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 . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – McKinnon 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 . .
See Also – McKinnon v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 23-Jan-2009
. .
See Also – McKinnon, 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.250702

Grewling v Circuit Court of Gorzow Wielkopowski, Poland: Admn 6 Feb 2013

The appellant challenged an order for his extradition to Poland to serve sentences for drugs offences. He relied upon a delay of six years, during which time he had made a life in the UK, with young children born here.
Held: The delay may have been caused by the appellant’s own coming here to avoid the sentence. On his return he might be able to apply for a reduction in the term imposed. Appeal dismissed.

Judges:

Collins J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 558 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 26

Extradition

Updated: 17 November 2022; Ref: scu.472814

Zmijewski, Regina (on The Application of) v Crown Prosecution Service: Admn 31 Jan 2013

Application for permission to apply for judicial review to challenge District Judge Evans’s refusal to grant an adjournment to permit further evidence to be put in and/or to refuse to allow the appellant to give oral evidence in an extradition hearing.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 368 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Extradition

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.472492

Zabolotnyi v The Mateszalka District Court, Hungary: SC 30 Apr 2021

Whether expected treatment in a Hungarian prison would be inhuman and degrading. Admission of evidence doubting state re-assurances.

Judges:

Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Hamblen, Lord Leggatt, Lord Burrows, Lord Stephens

Citations:

[2021] UKSC 14

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Press Summary, Bailii Issues and Facts

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3, Extradition Act 2003 27

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.662307

Pham v The District Court for The Southern District of New York: Admn 13 Dec 2012

Application for bail in extradition proceedings made pursuant to section 1A of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, inserted by amendments made to the Police and Justice Act 2006.

Judges:

Blake J

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 3890 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition, Criminal Practice

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471271

Halligen v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 19 Dec 2012

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 3784 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – VB and Others v Westminster Magistrates SC 5-Nov-2014
Extraditions to follow normal open justice rules
Application was made by Rwanda for the extradition of four individuals to face crimes said to have been committed during their civil war. Witnesses were prepared to give evidence but only in private and not being seen by the representatives of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 14 November 2022; Ref: scu.471264

Ramda, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 27 Jun 2002

The Government of France sought the extradition of Ramda wanted by them for trial in connection with a series of terrorist bombings in France. The applicant resisted extradition to France on the ground that the evidence which would be relied on against him at trial had been obtained by torture and that he would be unable to resist its admission.
Held: ‘Among the issues for the Home Secretary to determine may be whether the trial to be faced by the wanted person will be a fair trial. This may involve the voluntariness of extra-judicial confessions relied on as against him.’ If these points were made out, his trial would not be fair and the Secretary of State would be effectively bound to refuse to extradite him.

Judges:

Sedley LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1278 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Montgomery and Coulter v Her Majesty’s Advocate PC 19-Oct-2000
The test of whether a defendant’s common law right to a fair trial had been damaged by pre-trial publicity was similar to the test under the Convention, and also where there was any plea of oppression. The substantial difference is that no balancing . .
Cited – Kanda v Government of the Federation of Malaya PC 2-Apr-1962
A police Inspector had been dismissed on a finding of an offence against discipline. . He complained that he had not been allowed to see the report of the Board of Inquiry which contained prejudicial material and which had been relied upon by the . .

Cited by:

Cited – A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, Mahmoud Abu Rideh Jamal Ajouaou v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Aug-2004
The claimants had each been detained without trial for more than two years, being held as suspected terrorists. They were free leave to return to their own countries, but they feared for their lives if returned. They complained that the evidence . .
Cited – A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
Evidence from 3rd Party Torture Inadmissible
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.175113

Al Nashiri v Poland: ECHR 10 Jul 2012

ECHR Article 3
Torture
Alleged complicity in practice of rendition of persons to secret detention sites at which illegal interrogation methods were employed: communicated
Effective investigation
Alleged failure to acknowledge and investigate details of ill-treatment and enforced disappearance: communicated
[This summary also covers the communicated case of Al Nashiri v. Romania, no. 33234/12.]
The applicant, a Saudi Arabian national of Yemeni descent who is currently detained in the United States Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba due to suspicion of his involvement in certain terrorist activities, claims several violations of the Convention in relation to the alleged complicity of the respondent States in the practice within their territory by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) of ‘extraordinary rendition’.*
In his application to the Court he complains that these States, who he alleges knew and should have known about the rendition programme, the secret detention sites within their territory in which he was held, and the torture and inhuman and degrading treatment to which he and others were subjected to as part of the process, knowingly and intentionally enabled the CIA to detain him, and have refused to date to properly acknowledge or investigate any wrongdoing. He also alleges that the respondent States enabled the CIA to transfer him from their territory despite substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk that he would be subjected to the death penalty and further ill-treatment and incommunicado detention, and that he would receive a flagrantly unfair trial.
In support of his complaints, the applicant notes that the process of extraordinary rendition has been condemned in the strongest terms by numerous international organisations – including the European Parliament, and that the circumstances surrounding these events have been the subject of various reports and investigations, including the ‘Marty Reports’ commissioned by the Council of Europe, which detail an intricate network of CIA detention and transfer in certain Council of Europe States.
Communicated under Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 13 of the Convention, and under Protocol No. 6 to the Convention.
* The apprehension and extrajudicial transfer of a person to a secret detention site for the purpose of interrogation, during which illegal methods are often employed.

Citations:

28761/11 – CLIN, [2012] ECHR 2028

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

See Also – Al Nashiri v Romania (Communicated Case) ECHR 18-Sep-2012
Statement of facts – applicant detained in Guantanamo Bay . .
See Also – Al Nashiri v Poland (Legal Summary) ECHR 24-Jul-2014
ECHR Article 3
Torture
Effective investigation
Extradition
Torture and inhuman and degrading treatment during and following applicants’ extraordinary rendition to CIA: violations
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Extradition

Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.466982

Deya v The Government of Kenya: 2008

Judges:

Dyson LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2914 (Admin)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bary and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 7-Aug-2009
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Extradition

Updated: 09 November 2022; Ref: scu.373979

Pomiechowski v The District Court In Legnica, 59-220 Poland: Admn 9 Nov 2012

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 3161 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Pomiechowski v District Court of Legunica, Poland Admn 15-Jun-2011
The three defendants wished to appeal against orders for their extradition to Poland. They had been arrested, and while in custody had used the prison’s support services, who failed to serve their notices in time.
Held: The notices were . .
See Also – Lukaszewski 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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – BB, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Another CA 19-Nov-2012
The Secretary of State wished to deport the applicant on the basis of his suspected involvement in acts of terrorism. An order for his deportation had been revoked by the respondent, but he had remained on very stringent bail conditions, since 2007. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 06 November 2022; Ref: scu.465733