Arranz v Spanish Judicial Authority: Admn 14 Jun 2013

Appeal against the judgment at the Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordering the surrender of the respondent Judicial Authority under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. Three issues arose on the appeal:
i) Did the EAW comply with s.2 of the Extradition Act 2003 (the 2003 Act)?
ii) Was there an abuse of process?
iii) Would extradition to Spain result in the imposition of a retroactive penalty in breach of the appellant’s rights under Article 7 and therefore arbitrary detention in breach of Article 5?

Judges:

Sir John Thomas P QBD, Simon J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1662 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoSpanish Judicial Authority v Arranz Admn 31-Jul-2015
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.510868

Kuprevicius v Government of Lithuania: QBD 18 May 2006

The claimant challenged his extradition saying that the arrest warrant had not explicitly alleged, as required, that he was ‘unlawfully at large’.
Held: The statement could be inferred where the circumstances properly allowed that.

Judges:

Richards LJ, Toulson J

Citations:

Times 12-Jun-2006

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 2(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.242641

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Launder: QBD 18 Mar 1998

Speciality protection requirement satisfied by undertaking for re-surrender given by Hong Kong Chief Executive, despite excess time on bail. For the purposes of a challenge to extradition under domestic law, an applicant for habeas corpus is to be treated as effectively in custody.

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Mance J

Citations:

Gazette 18-Mar-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 214, [1998] 3 WLR 221, [1998] QB 994, [1998] COD 301

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 6(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoIn the Matter of Launder In the Matter of Extradition Act 1989 In the Matter of an Application for Bail Admn 21-May-1997
. .
See AlsoRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Launder Admn 6-Aug-1996
The exercise of a discretion on extradition is judicially reviewable in the same way as are other decisions. . .
See AlsoRegina 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 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.

Extradition

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87875

Regina v Governor of Belmarsh Prison and Another Ex Parte Gilligan: QBD 20 Jan 1998

A magistrate ordering the transfer of a prisoner to Ireland must be satisfied that a sufficiently serious offence was alleged, but strict evidence was not required. As to the 1988 Act, the evidence must at least be admissible.

Citations:

Times 20-Jan-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 6, [1998] I Cr App R 14

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 2(2), Criminal Justice Act 1988 823(1)

Cited by:

CitedLobban, Regina v CACD 7-May-2004
The defendant appealed his conviction. A witness statement had been read, but he had wanted to cross examine her. The court was satisfied that her refusal to give evidence in person was through fear.
Held: In making the decision, the judge had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86721

Regina v Governor of Belmarsh Prison and Another, Ex Parte Gilligan; Regina v Governor of Exeter Prison and Another, Ex Parte Ellis: HL 1 Dec 1999

Provided there was sufficient correspondence between the offence alleged to have taken place in Ireland and a serious offence in England, it was proper to order his return to Ireland under an Irish warrant. There is no extradition treaty between the two countries, but the system was properly recorded in the 1965 Act. There was no need for identicality of the offence alleged and the comparable English offence.

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Steyn Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde

Citations:

Times 24-Nov-1999, Gazette 01-Dec-1999, [1999] UKHL 46, [1999] 3 WLR 1244, [2000] 1 All ER 113, [2001] 1 AC 84

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 2(2)

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, International

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85278

Regina v Bow Street Magistrates ex parte Government of the United States of America; In re Allison: HL 2 Sep 1999

A person within an organisation who was authorised to access some data on a computer system at a particular level, could exceed his authority by accessing data at a level outside that authority. The unauthorised access offence under the 1990 Act was not limited to access obtained by an outsider or hacker. A section 1 offence could be committed without the relevant intent being proved to be directed at particular data. A conspiracy to commit an offence under section 2 is extradictable.

Judges:

Lord Steyn, Lord Hutton, Lord Saville of Newdigate, Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough, Lord Millett

Citations:

Times 02-Sep-1999, [1999] UKHL 31, [1999] ALL ER 1, [2000] 2 AC 216

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Computer Misuse Act 1990, Extradition Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Gilmore and Ogun Admn 6-Jun-1997
An ‘offence under the Act’ does not include a conspiracy to commit that offence for purposes of extradition proceedings. The court rejected an argument that the effect of the Act of 1989 was to free the Treaty from the constraints imposed by the . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Bignell and Another QBD 6-Jun-1997
Policemen were convicted by the stipendiary magistrate of an offence under 1990 Act. They had requested a police computer operator to obtain information from the Police National Computer about the ownership and registration of two cars for their own . .
Not followedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Bignall Admn 16-May-1997
The defendant police officers had obtained information from the Police National Computer, but had used it for improper purposes.
Held: The prosecution should have taken place under the 1990 Act as unauthorised access, and had not been used . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Stanford CACD 1-Feb-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction for the unlawful interception of communications, saying that he was authorised to access the information he had obtained. He had instructed a junior employee to access emails by the use of an ID and password . .
CitedZakrzewski v The Regional Court In Lodz, Poland SC 23-Jan-2013
The appellant was subject to an extradition request. He objected that the request involved an aggregation of sentences and that this did not meet the requirement sof the 2003 Act. He had been arrested under the arrest warrant, but during his trial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Extradition

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85134

Regina v Brixton Prison and Another, Ex Parte Burke: HL 16 Jun 2000

It was proper to extradite to the US, a person who had been convicted and had served all the part of his sentence which he would serve in prison, but where some proportion of his sentence which would be served under a supervised release scheme remained to be served. There was no limitation to returning only after unlawful escapes from custody, but rather the provision set a minimum. The period of supervision was part of the original sentence.

Citations:

Times 16-Jun-2000, [2000] UKHL 35; 3 All ER 481; [2000] 3 WLR 33

Links:

House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 Sch 1 para 5(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Extradition

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85149

In Re Ismail (Application For Writ of Habeas Corpus) (On Appeal From A Divisional Court of The Queen’s Bench Division): HL 20 Aug 1998

The term ‘Accused person’ for the purposes of extradition can include a person yet to be charged. Allowance are to be made for foreign systems, and should recognise the purpose of the legislation and includes the desire to interview or where a person is wanted to help with inquiries.
Lord Steyn said: ”accused’ in section 1 of the Act of 1989 is not a term of art. It is a question of fact in each case whether the person passes the threshold test of being an ‘accused’ person . . one is concerned with the contextual meaning of ‘accused’ in a statute intended to serve the purpose of bringing to justice those accused of serious crimes. There is a transnational interest in the achievement of this aim. Extradition treaties, and extradition statutes, ought, therefore, to be accorded a broad and generous construction so far as the text permits it in order to facilitate extradition.’

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hutton

Citations:

Times 20-Aug-1998, Gazette 16-Sep-1998, [1998] 3 WLR 495, [1998] UKHL 32, [1999] 1 AC 320, [1998] 3 All ER 1007

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 1

Cited by:

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 . .
CitedRaissi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 22-Feb-2007
The claimant sought judicial review of a refusal to make an ex gratia payment for his imprisonment whilst successfully resisting extradition proceedings. Terrorist connections had been suggested, but the judge made an explicit finding that at no . .
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 . .
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 . .
CitedCaldarelli v Court of Naples HL 30-Jul-2008
The appellant challenged his extradition saying that the European Arrest Warrant under which he was held wrongly said that he was convicted, whilst he said he was wanted for trial. He had been tried in his absence, and the judgment and sentence were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81949

Regina v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court ex parte Van der Holst: 1986

Citations:

[1986] 83 Cr App R 114

Cited by:

CitedEnander v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another Admn 16-Nov-2005
The claimant sought habeas corpus. The Swedish authorities had issued a European Arrest Warrant for his extradition. He submitted that the authority issuing the warrant in Sweden did not amount to a ‘judicial authority’ because it would not be so . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.539977

Al-Fawwaz v Governor of Brixton Prison: QBD 20 Dec 2000

To found an extradition application, it was not sufficient that the crime should be listed as such by English law, but it was also necessary that it should be a crime of appropriate standing in the country to which extradition was sought. The crime also had to have been committed within the territory of the nation which sought extradition. Here, the USA sought extradition in respect to of offences which had not been committed in the USA, of people who had had no connection with the USA.

Citations:

Times 20-Dec-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 424

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 1(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromIn 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, International

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77720

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department: ex parte Chahal: QBD 5 Apr 1993

The Home Secretary need not consider any risk of torture as an issue separate from that of persecution, when considering making an order for deportation.

Citations:

Ind Summary 05-Apr-1993

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 3(5)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Chahal CA 27-Oct-1993
Chahal was a Sikh separatist leader who was refused asylum and whom the Secretary of State proposed to deport to India as a threat to national security here.
Held: The Home Secretary must balance the need to deport against against any threat . .
See AlsoChahal v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-1996
Proper Reply Opportunity Required on Deportation
(Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Extradition

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.87941

Regina 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 requesting state can tip the balance.

Judges:

Woolf LJ

Citations:

[1992] 1 All ER 579

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 . .
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: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.261509

Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison ex parte Tarling: QBD 1978

An Applicant is entitled to seek habeas corpus on more than one occasion, but he is not permitted to rely upon the same grounds unless he can rely upon fresh evidence. That evidence must not just be additional evidence obtained after the previous hearing, but evidence which could not reasonably have been adduced at that earlier hearing. ‘First, it is clear to the Court that an applicant for Habeas Corpus is required to put forward on his initial application the whole of the case which is then fairly available to him. He is not free to advance an application on one ground, and to keep back a separate ground of application as a basis for a second and renewed application to the Court. The true doctrine of estoppel known as res judicata does not apply to the decision of this Court on an application for Habeas Corpus . . there is, however, a wider sense in which the doctrine of res judicata maybe applicable, whereby it becomes an abuse of process to raise in subsequent proceedings matters which could, and therefore should, have been litigated in earlier proceedings . . that principle is applicable to proceedings for Habeas Corpus… although no doubt, the stringency of the application of the principle maybe different in cases concerning the liberty of the subject from that in cases concerning such matters as disputes upon property.’

Judges:

Lord Widgery CJ, Griffiths and Gibson JJ

Citations:

[1979] 1 WLR 1417

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed toRegina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Tarling HL 1978
The Government of Singapore sought Mr Tarling’s extradition inter alia on two charges of conspiring in Hong Kong to steal shares in a Hong Kong company, the property of a Singapore Company.
Held: a conspiracy in Hong Kong to steal shares in a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.220730

Somchai Liangsiriprasert v Government of the United States of America: PC 1991

(Hong Kong) Application was made for the defendant’s extradition from Hong Kong to the USA. The question was whether a conspiracy entered into outside Hong Kong with the intention of committing the criminal offence of trafficking in drugs in Hong Kong was justiciable in Hong Kong although no overt act in pursuance of that conspiracy had yet taken place in Hong Kong.
Held: English criminal law is generally local in its effect. The criminal law does not concern itself with crimes committed abroad. Any offence may be tried in this country even if the last act did not take place here, provided the court sees nothing contrary to international comity in its assumption of jurisdiction. Conspiracy being an inchoate offence, no ‘last act’ was required.
Lord Griffiths said: ‘Unfortunately in this Century crime has ceased to be largely local in origin and effect. Crime is now established on an international scale and the criminal law must face this new reality. Their lordships can find nothing in precedent, comity or good sense that should inhibit the common law from regarding as justiciable in England inchoate crimes committed abroad which are intended to result in the commission of criminal offences in England.’ and
‘The English courts have decisively begun to move away from definitional obsessions and technical formulations aimed at finding a single situs of a crime by locating where the gist of the crime occurred or where it was completed. Rather, they now appear to seek by an examination of relevant policies to apply the English criminal law where a substantial measure of the activities constituting a crime take place in England, and restrict its application in such circumstances solely in cases where it can seriously be argued on a reasonable view that these activities should, on the basis of international comity, be dealt with by another country.’ and ‘Their Lordships can find nothing in precedent, comity or good sense that should inhibit the common law from regarding as justiciable in England inchoate crimes committed abroad which are intended to result in the commission of criminal offences in England.’ and
‘It is notoriously difficult to apprehend those at the centre of the drug trade: it is only their couriers who are usually caught. If the courts were to regard the penetration of a drug dealing organisation by the agents of a law enforcement agency and a plan to tempt the criminals into a jurisdiction from which they could be extradited as an abuse of process it would indeed be a red letter day for the drug barons.’

Judges:

Lord Griffiths

Citations:

[1991] 1 AC 225, (1991) 92 Cr App R 77, [1990] UKPC 31

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedTreacy v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1970
Blackmail was alleged under section 21 of the 1968 Act, the letter making the unwarranted demand with menaces having been posted from England to an intended victim in Germany.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. To allow an English court to have . .

Cited by:

AppliedRegina v Smith (Wallace Duncan) (No 1) CACD 13-Nov-1995
In the offence of fraudulent trading, ‘creditors’ are those to whom money was owed, including future creditors, not just those who can presently sue. Deceptions practised in UK, but having their effect abroad are prosecutable here. The only feature . .
CitedRegina v Manning CACD 24-Jun-1998
The defendant appealed his conviction for obtaining property by deception where part of the offence had taken place abroad.
Held: Smith should be overturned. The last act or terminatory theory remains the binding common law of England and . .
AppliedRegina v Sansom 1991
Conspiracy over international borders – comity rule applied to provide jurisdiction. . .
CitedHer Majesty’s Advocate v Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah HCJ 8-Dec-1999
The court considered whether the criminal complaint that the defendants had been part of a conspiracy to set a bomb aboard an airliner which exploded over Scotland, was justiciable in Scotland. Lord Sutherland: ‘Where however, a crime of the utmost . .
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 . .
AppliedRegina v Sansom CACD 2-Jan-1991
The appellants had been charged with conspiracy contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The court rejected the argument that the principle laid down in Somchai referred only to the common law and that it could not be applied to . .
CitedRegina v Bartle and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte; Regina v Evans and Similar (No 3) HL 24-Mar-1999
An application to extradite a former head of state for an offence which was not at the time an offence under English law would fail, but could proceed in respect of allegations of acts after that time. No immunity was intended for heads of state. . .
CitedRegina v Latif; Regina v Shahzad HL 23-Jan-1996
The defendant had been lured into the UK by the unlawful acts of customs officers. He claimed abuse of process.
Held: The category of cases in which the abuse of process principles can be applied is not closed. A customs officer committing an . .
ApprovedRegina v Manning CACD 23-Jul-1998
The accused dishonestly falsified a number of insurance cover notes which were said to be documents required for an accounting purpose, namely, those of the persons who had sought cover and to whom the cover notes were forwarded. The accused ran his . .
CitedPurdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 30-Jul-2009
Need for Certainty in Scope of Offence
The appellant suffered a severe chronic illness and anticipated that she might want to go to Switzerland to commit suicide. She would need her husband to accompany her, and sought an order requiring the respondent to provide clear guidelines on the . .
CitedSheppard and Another, Regina v CACD 29-Jan-2010
The defendants appealed against their convictions for publishing racially inflammatory material. They skipped bail during the trial, were convicted in their absence, and returned after being refused asylum in the US. The convictions related to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Jurisdiction, Extradition

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.196558

The United States of America v Gaynor: PC 1905

The Privy Council allowed an appeal from an order of a Judge, itself having given special leave to appeal.
Lord Halsbury LC said: ‘Their Lordships do not mean to suggest that the writ of habeas corpus is not applicable when there is a preliminary proceeding. Each case must depend upon its own merits. But where a prisoner is brought before a competent tribunal, and is charged with an extradition offence and remanded for the express purpose of affording the prosecution the opportunity of bringing forward the evidence by which that accusation is to be supported; if, in such a case, upon a writ of habeas corpus, a learned Judge treats the remand warrant as a nullity, and proceeds to adjudicate upon the case as though the whole evidence were before him, it would paralyze the administration of justice and render it impossible for the proceedings in extradition to be effective.’

Judges:

Lord Halsbury L.C

Citations:

[1905] AC 128

Cited by:

CitedThe Attorney General for St Christopher and Nevis v Rodionov PC 20-Jul-2004
(St. Christopher and Nevis) The government of Canada requested the extradition of the respondent. The Attorney General sought special leave to appeal against the order for his discharge from custody, which had been on the grounds of the prejudice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Constitutional, Extradition

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.199443

Re 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’.

Citations:

[1921] AC 570

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

AppliedBonalumi 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Armed Forces

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.183548

Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Tarling: HL 1978

The Government of Singapore sought Mr Tarling’s extradition inter alia on two charges of conspiring in Hong Kong to steal shares in a Hong Kong company, the property of a Singapore Company.
Held: a conspiracy in Hong Kong to steal shares in a Hong Kong company, the property of a English company, would not be triable in England. The charges were not supported. Conduct which constitutes an extradition crime does not consist of acts which actually were committed in England or within English jurisdiction, but rather conduct which would constitute a crime under English law if the acts in question were so committed. The test, therefore, is a hypothetical one, which calls for some degree of transposition: ‘In considering the jurisdiction aspect it is necessary to suppose that England is substituted for Singapore as regards all the circumstances of the case connected with the latter country, and to examine the question whether upon that hypothesis and upon the evidence adduced the English courts would have jurisdiction to try the offences charged.’

Judges:

Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Wilberforce

Citations:

[1978] 70 Cr App R 77 HL

Cited by:

DistinguishedRegina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex Parte Osman QBD 30-Mar-1988
The applicant had been committed to prison pending extradition proceedings brought by Hong Kong alleging substantial fraud. He challenged the committal on the grounds that since the allegations involved transmission of funds over international . .
Appealed toRegina v Governor of Pentonville Prison ex parte Tarling QBD 1978
An Applicant is entitled to seek habeas corpus on more than one occasion, but he is not permitted to rely upon the same grounds unless he can rely upon fresh evidence. That evidence must not just be additional evidence obtained after the previous . .
Appeal fromScott v Metropolitan Police Commissioner; Regina v Scott HL 20-Nov-1974
The defendant had been accused of conspiracy to produce pirate copies of films obtained by purchasing copies from cinema owners without the knowledge or consent of the copyright owners.
Held: To establish a conspiracy to defraud, it was not . .
CitedAdams v The Queen PC 4-Nov-1994
(New Zealand) The defendant had been a managing director of Equitcorp. With other directors he was concerned with the company’s investments, and established a series of other companies and banks to hide fraudulent transactions. Equitcorp became . .
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: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.182204

Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison Ex Parte Alves: HL 2 Dec 1992

In extradition proceedings, the withdrawal of a statement did not of itself vitiate that statement or the proceedings. The Galbraith test applied to committals in extradition proceedings just as it does to domestic criminal trials.

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley

Citations:

Gazette 02-Dec-1992, [1993] AC 284

Citing:

CitedRegina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .

Cited by:

CitedRaissi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 22-Feb-2007
The claimant sought judicial review of a refusal to make an ex gratia payment for his imprisonment whilst successfully resisting extradition proceedings. Terrorist connections had been suggested, but the judge made an explicit finding that at no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.86738

Government of United States of America v Bowe: HL 1990

The House referred to the desirability of all the evidence being adduced before the magistrate before any application for a prerogative remedy was sought.

Judges:

Lord Lowry

Citations:

[1990] 1 AC 500

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Augusto Pinochet Ugarte Admn 27-May-1999
The applicant, the former president of Chile, sought to challenge an order allowing an application for his extradition to proceed. He said that once the matters deemed inadmissible had been excluded, there was insufficicient ground to allow the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.223946

Chief 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)

Judges:

Lord Justice Donaldson, Lord Denning MR, Slade LJ

Citations:

[1982] CLY 2495, [1983] QB 34

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBonalumi 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 . .
CitedWorcestershire County Council v Tongue and others ChD 6-Aug-2003
The defendants had been convicted of offences involving mistreatment of animals, and debarred from having custody of animals. They were now in breach of that order, and the council sought a civil order allowing it access to their land to remove any . .
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 . .
CitedWorcestershire County Council v Tongue, Tongue, and Tongue CA 17-Feb-2004
The defendants had been convicted of animal welfare offences, and banned from keeping animals. The claimant sought to enter the premises to remove animals, but were denied entry.
Held: The court had no power to make an order to allow access . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Local Government, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.183550

Government of America v Bowe: PC 1990

Where a magistrates or similar court refuse a defence application for an adjournment, generally speaking, the entire case, including all the evidence which the parties wish to adduce, should be presented to the Magistrate before either side applies for a prerogative remedy. Only when it is clear that the extradition proceedings must fail (as where the Order to Proceed is issued by the wrong person) should this practice be varied.

Judges:

Lord Lowry

Citations:

[1990] AC 500

Cited by:

CitedRegina v District Court Martial Sitting at RAF Lyneham (ex parte SAC Wayne Robert James Stoodley) Admn 20-May-1998
The defendant sought certiorari of a refusal of an adjournment of his hearing by the respondent. His defence team had requested an adjournment for a psychiatric report. The court had said such a report would not go as to mens rea.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Magistrates

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.179888

St John v United States of America and Another: CA 12 Jul 2001

The applicant sought to challenge extradition proceedings on the grounds that it would be a breach of his human rights to allow him to be extradited to a country where he might face the death penalty, a penalty precluded under the Convention. The court held that the extradition proceedings themselves should not be affected by this question, but instead the issue should be addressed, if an order was made, at the point where the Secretary of State made the executive decision to return the prisoner, perhaps by seeking re-assurances from the requesting state about compliance with the convention. The risk of his being also dealt with for other offences not the subject of the extradition application should be dealt with in the same way.

Judges:

Brooke LJ, Harrison J

Citations:

Times 10-Aug-2001

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights Sixth Protocol Art 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.159500

H v Spain: ECHR 1982

(Commission) An American citizen whose extradition from Spain was sought by the United States, complained that he had had inadequate legal representation and interpretation before the Audiencia Nacional.
Held: The complaint was inadmissible. Extradition proceedings do not involve the ‘determination of a criminal charge’ within article 6(1), because in this context ‘the word ‘determination’ involves the full process of the examination of an individual’s guilt or innocence of an offence’

Citations:

10227/82

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6(1)

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, Criminal Practice, Extradition

Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.463305

Pinto 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 the commencement of the extradition hearing.
Held: In the absence of a statutory appeal against that decision, there was jurisdiction to grant a writ of Habeas Corpus. The warrant was deficient and all steps taken pursuant to it were invalid. The court granted Habeas Corpus.

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2986

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoIn re Agnaldo Ernesto Pinto and In the Matter of an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum Agnaldo Ernesto Pinto and Secretary of State for Home Department; Governor of Brixton Prison and Government of India Admn 19-May-1999
. .

Cited by:

CitedHilali 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Litigation Practice

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.258639

Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, ex parte Kahan: QBD 1989

The court deplored any use of an application to a Divisional Court ahead of a final determination by the committing magistrate.

Judges:

Mustill LJ

Citations:

[1989] QB 716

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Augusto Pinochet Ugarte Admn 27-May-1999
The applicant, the former president of Chile, sought to challenge an order allowing an application for his extradition to proceed. He said that once the matters deemed inadmissible had been excluded, there was insufficicient ground to allow the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.223947

Regina v Bartle and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte; Regina v Evans and Similar (No 3): HL 24 Mar 1999

An application to extradite a former head of state for an offence which was not at the time an offence under English law would fail, but could proceed in respect of allegations of acts after that time. No immunity was intended for heads of state. International law prohibiting torture has the character of jus cogens or a peremptory norm: ‘the jus cogens nature of the international crime of torture justifies states in taking universal jurisdiction over torture wherever committed. International law provides that offences jus cogens may be punished by any state because the offenders are ‘common enemies of all mankind and all nations have an equal interest in their apprehension and prosecution:’ Demjanjuk v Petrovsky (1985) 603 F.supp. 1468′ and Lord Browne-Wilkinson: ‘It is a basic principle of international law that one sovereign state (the forum state) does not adjudicate on the conduct of a foreign state. The foreign state is entitled to procedural immunity from the process of the forum state. This immunity extends to both criminal and civil liability. State immunity probably grew from the historical immunity of the person of the monarch. In any event, such personal immunity of a head of state persist to the present day; a head of state is entitled to the same immunity as the state itself’

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Goff of Chieveley

Citations:

Gazette 28-Apr-1999, [1999] UKHL 147, [2000] 1 AC 147, [1999] 2 WLR 825, [1999] 2 All ER 97

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

International Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984 (1990) Cm 1775, State Immunity Act 1978, Extradition Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedHatch v Baez 1876
(United States) The plaintiff claimed that he had suffered injuries in the Dominican Republic as a result of acts done by the defendant in his official capacity of President of that Republic. The Court accepted that because the defendant was in New . .
CitedThe Republic of Ireland v The United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jan-1978
The UK lodged a derogation with the Court as regards its human rights obligations in Northern Ireland because of the need to control terroist activity. The Government of Ireland intervened. From August 1971 until December 1975 the UK authorities . .
CitedPlaya Larga (Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board) v I Congresso del Partido (Owners) HL 1983
The concept of absolute immunity for a Sovereign adopts a theory of restrictive immunity in so far as it concerns the activities of a State engaging in trade: (Lord Wilberforce) ‘It was argued by the [appellants] that even if the Republic of Cuba . .
CitedRegina v Sansom CACD 2-Jan-1991
The appellants had been charged with conspiracy contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The court rejected the argument that the principle laid down in Somchai referred only to the common law and that it could not be applied to . .
CitedAlcom Ltd v Republic of Colombia HL 1984
A bank account used to cover the day-to-day expenses of an Embassy, clearly served sovereign purposes and therefore was immune from enforcement measures. The Act of 1978 must be read against the background of customary international law current in . .
CitedDuke of Brunswick v The King of Hanover HL 31-Jul-1948
The Duke claimed that the King of Hanover had been involved in the removal of the Duke from his position as reigning Duke and in the maladministration of his estates.
Held: ‘A foreign Sovereign, coming into this country cannot be made . .
CitedIn re Piracy jure gentium PC 1934
Charges of piracy were brought against Chinese Nationals who had pursued and attacked a cargo junk. They were indicted in Hong Kong for the crime of piracy and found guilty subject to a question of law: ‘Whether an accused person may be convicted of . .
CitedAl-Adsani v Government of Kuwait and Others (No 2) CA 29-Mar-1996
The claimant alleged that he had suffered torture in a security prison in Kuwait, and he obtained leave to serve out of the jurisdiction on the Government of Kuwait, and on three individuals, one of whom at least was served, on the ground that he . .
CitedSomchai Liangsiriprasert v Government of the United States of America PC 1991
(Hong Kong) Application was made for the defendant’s extradition from Hong Kong to the USA. The question was whether a conspiracy entered into outside Hong Kong with the intention of committing the criminal offence of trafficking in drugs in Hong . .
CitedBuck v Attorney General CA 2-Jan-1965
By an action for declaratory relief, a challenge was offered to the validity of the Order in Council giving effect to the 1961 Act.
Held: The appeal failed. As a matter of international comity an English court should not grant declarations . .
CitedTrendtex Trading Corporation v Central Bank of Nigeria CA 1977
The court considered the developing international jurisdiction over commercial activities of state bodies which might enjoy state immunity, and sought to ascertain whether or not the Central Bank of Nigeria was entitled to immunity from suit.

Cited by:

CitedGoatley v The Governor of HM Prison Brixton and the Government of the Netherlands QBD 20-Jun-2002
The second respondent sought the extradition of the applicant for trial for drugs offences. He said that the alleged offences were extra terratorial to the second defendant, but that extradition was restricted to intra territorial offences.
CitedA, 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 . .
CitedJones and Milling, Olditch and Pritchard, and Richards v Gloucestershire Crown Prosecution Service CACD 21-Jul-2004
The court considered the extent to which the defendants in the proceedings can rely on their beliefs as to the unlawfulness of the United Kingdom’s actions in preparing for, declaring, and waging war in Iraq in 2003 in a defence to a charge of . .
CitedJones and Milling, Olditch and Pritchard, and Richards v Gloucestershire Crown Prosecution Service CACD 21-Jul-2004
The court considered the extent to which the defendants in the proceedings can rely on their beliefs as to the unlawfulness of the United Kingdom’s actions in preparing for, declaring, and waging war in Iraq in 2003 in a defence to a charge of . .
CitedJones v Ministry of Interior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya As Saudiya Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) and Another CA 28-Oct-2004
The claimants sought damages alleging torture by the respondent whilst held in custody in Saudi Arabia.
Held: Although the state enjoyed freedom from action, where the acts were ones of torture, and action could proceed against state officials . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Augusto Pinochet Ugarte Admn 27-May-1999
The applicant, the former president of Chile, sought to challenge an order allowing an application for his extradition to proceed. He said that once the matters deemed inadmissible had been excluded, there was insufficicient ground to allow the . .
CitedAziz v Republic of Yemen CA 17-Jun-2005
The claimant had made a claim for unfair dismissal. The defendant state had filed a defence instead of claiming state immunity. It then sought to assert such immunity. The claimant said the state had waived its immunity.
Held: Section 2(7) of . .
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 . .
CitedAlamieyeseigha, Regina (on the Application Of) v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 25-Nov-2005
The defendant argued that as Governor and Chief Excecutive of Bayelsa State in Nigeria he had sovereign immunity. The Foreign Office had issued a certificate that the defendant was not a Head of States under the 1978 Act. The A-G of Bayelsa had . .
CitedProsecutor v Furundzija 1-Apr-1999
(International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia) The court described the main features of the law against torture: ‘There exists today universal revulsion against torture: as a USA Court put it in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, ‘the torturer . .
CitedA 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 . .
CitedRegina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others HL 29-Mar-2006
Domestic Offence requires Domestic Defence
Each defendant sought to raise by way of defence of their otherwise criminal actions, the fact that they were attempting to prevent the commission by the government of the crime of waging an aggressive war in Iraq, and that their acts were . .
CitedJones v Ministry of Interior for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimants said that they had been tortured by Saudi police when arrested on false charges. They sought damages, and appealed against an order denying jurisdiction over the defendants. They said that the allegation of torture allowed an exception . .
CitedHolland v Lampen-Wolfe HL 20-Jul-2000
The US established a base at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire, and provided educational services through its staff to staff families. The claimant a teacher employed at the base alleged that a report on her was defamatory. The defendant relied on state . .
CitedAziz v Aziz and others CA 11-Jul-2007
The claimant sought return of recordings and of money paid to the defendant through an alleged fraud or threats. She was the former wife of the Sultan of Brunei and head of state, who now sought an order requiring the court to protect his identity . .
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 . .
CitedMohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1) Admn 21-Aug-2008
The claimant had been detained by the US in Guantanamo Bay suspected of terrorist involvement. He sought to support his defence documents from the respondent which showed that the evidence to be relied on in the US courts had been obtained by . .
CitedEquality and Human Rights Commission v Prime Minister and Others Admn 3-Oct-2011
The defendant had published a set of guidelines for intelligence officers called upon to detain and interrogate suspects. The defendant said that the guidelines could only be tested against individual real life cases, and that the court should not . .
CitedTaylor, Regina v SC 13-Nov-2019
(Redacted) The court was asked to consider the meaning of ‘torture’ from events in a rebellion in Liberia in 1990. The CACD certified the following point of law of general public importance: ‘What is the correct interpretation of the term ‘person . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Crime

Leading Case

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.158999

Symeou v Public Prosecutor – Patras, Greece: Admn 1 May 2009

The defendant appealed against an order for his extradition saying that the proposed criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process and that the evidence against him had been obtained by torture and threats of violence.
Held: There did remain a residual right to decline an extradition request for abuse of process, but that did not go so far as consideration of alleged misconduct or bad faith by the requesting state. The judicial systems of members states of the European Union had to be regarded as providing appropriate minimum safeguards.

Judges:

Laws LJ, Ouseley J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 897 (Admin), Times 13-May-2009, [2009] 1 WLR 2384

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.341859

Regina (Marais) v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another: QBD 30 Nov 2001

The process of extradition is not one itself involving the imposition of a criminal penalty, and therefore such proceedings were outside the ambit of the convention. The prisoner sought to challenge an extradition requested from South Africa, claiming an element of retrospectivity. The fact that at the time the offence was committed there was no extradition treaty wih South Africa did not create the situation where a heavier penalty was sought to be imposed than the penalty applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy and Mr Justice Pitchford

Citations:

Times 18-Dec-2001, Gazette 06-Feb-2002

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights art 5.1, Extradition Act 1989 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.167110

Regina (Warda) v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another: QBD 13 Feb 2002

When making an extradition order, the court did not have to consider each provision of the Act. Parliament did not intend for it to be part of the function of the district judge to occupy his time deciding whether the many and varied treaty obligations had been complied with. Expert evidence could be admitted to establish compliance with the various provisions.

Judges:

Lord Justice Keene and Mr Justice Goldring

Citations:

Times 18-Mar-2002

Statutes:

United States of America (Extradition) Order 1976 (1976 No 2144) Sch 1, article III(1) VII(2)(c), Extradition Act 1989 Sch 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Re-affirmedRegina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Sinclair; Sinclair v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1991
The applicant had left the USA after conviction, but before his prison term commenced, and a warrant issued. Nine years later he was arrested in the UK, and extradition sought. He said that the extradition was time-barred under the Order. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.168008

Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison and Others: QBD 12 Jul 2001

The applicant sought a writ of habeas corpus. He had been committed to prison pending extradition for murder to the USA. He argued that he should not be extradited because he would face a possible death penalty. The court refused the writ. The issue was not one to be faced at committal, but properly one to be addressed to the Secretary of State when the warrant was requested.

Judges:

Brooke LJ, Harrison J

Citations:

Gazette 13-Sep-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.163313

Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another, Ex Parte Levin: QBD 11 Mar 1996

Extradition proceedings are criminal proceedings so as to allow the admission of computer printout under criminal procedures.

Citations:

Times 11-Mar-1996

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984$ 69

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromIn 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Evidence, Extradition

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.86727

Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another Ex Parte Evans: HL 22 Jul 1994

A defendant in extradition proceedings may not bring his own evidence. He can make representations only. ‘There are thus six steps in the extradition of a suspect from the United Kingdom. First, the foreign court must consider that a charge of serious crime has been properly laid against the suspect on the basis of information which justifies the issue of a warrant for his arrest. Secondly the administration of the foreign country must consider that the charge, the law of the foreign country and the circumstances justify a request for extradition in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. Thirdly, the foreign state must identify the suspect, authenticate the foreign warrant for his arrest, give particulars of the alleged conduct which constitutes the offence and produce a translation of the relevant foreign law which establishes the offence and makes it punishable by 12 months’ imprisonment or more. Fourthly, the Secretary of State must satisfy himself that the request is in order. The Secretary of State must then satisfy himself that the equivalent conduct in the United Kingdom would constitute an offence under the law of the United Kingdom punishable by 12 months’ imprisonment or more. The Secretary of State may then issue an authority to proceed and must identify and specify the relevant law of the United Kingdom. Fifthly, the metropolitan magistrate sitting as a court of committal must be satisfied, after he has heard representations, that the alleged conduct would constitute a serious offence in the foreign state and in the United Kingdom. In other words the magistrate must be satisfied that a charge of serious crime offensive in the foreign country and offensive in the United Kingdom has been properly laid against the accused. The suspect can then be committed and the magistrate must certify the offence against the law of the United Kingdom which would be constituted by his conduct. Sixthly, subject to any habeas corpus proceedings, the Secretary of State may enforce extradition.’

Judges:

Lord Templeman

Citations:

Times 22-Jul-1994, Independent 16-Aug-1994, [1994] 1 WLR 1006

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 7 9(8)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another, Ex Parte Evans QBD 10-Dec-1993
Justices may not hear evidence from Defendant in extradition case. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toRegina v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another, Ex Parte Evans QBD 10-Dec-1993
Justices may not hear evidence from Defendant in extradition case. . .
CitedA v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Criminal Practice, Extradition

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.86724

Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another, Ex Parte Evans: QBD 10 Dec 1993

Justices may not hear evidence from Defendant in extradition case.

Citations:

Times 10-Dec-1993

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed toRegina v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another Ex Parte Evans HL 22-Jul-1994
A defendant in extradition proceedings may not bring his own evidence. He can make representations only. ‘There are thus six steps in the extradition of a suspect from the United Kingdom. First, the foreign court must consider that a charge of . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another Ex Parte Evans HL 22-Jul-1994
A defendant in extradition proceedings may not bring his own evidence. He can make representations only. ‘There are thus six steps in the extradition of a suspect from the United Kingdom. First, the foreign court must consider that a charge of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.86726

O v Governor of Brixton Prison and An: QBD 2 Aug 1999

Where a committal by magistrates for extradition was challenged by habeas corpus, the High Court had power to send the matter back to the magistrates if there was some issue which the applicant had requested a decision upon, but which the court had deemed unnecessary for decision, so that the court could in fact rule on the question.

Citations:

Times 02-Aug-1999

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 Sch 1 Para 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.84401

Peci v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another: QBD 12 Jan 2000

Where a country applies to another for the extradition of a prisoner, and gives unequivocal guarantees that the prisoner will receive a fair trial, the good faith of the requesting state must be presumed. The prisoner having been convicted in his absence, the Swiss government undertook that if he applied within the 20 day time limit upon his return his conviction would be set aside, and he would be given a fair trial.

Citations:

Times 12-Jan-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.84637

Vey v The Office of the Public Prosecutor of the County Court of Montlucon, France: Admn 7 Apr 2006

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 760 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 26

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedVon Der Pahlen v Government of Austria Admn 27-Jun-2006
The defendant resisted extradition to Austria saying that the warrant was defective. The claimant said that generalised charges were sufficient.
Held: ‘The language of section 2(4)(c) is not obscure and, in my judgment, it should be given its . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.240342

Kleuver v- -Norway: ECHR 30 Apr 2002

The mother resisted extradition to face a drug trafficking charge. She complained that she would be separated from her child on its birth.
Held: Her claim failed.

Citations:

45837/99

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Cited by:

CitedHH v Deputy Prosecutor of The Italian Republic, Genoa SC 20-Jun-2012
In each case the defendant sought to resist European Extradition Warrants saying that an order would be a disporportionate interference in their human right to family life. The Court asked whether its approach as set out in Norris, had to be amended . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Extradition

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.462858

Mammatkulov and Askarov v Turkey: ECHR 2005

The applicants complained of the Turkish extradition procedures.
Held: The Court reiterated that ‘decisions regarding the entry, stay and deportation of aliens do not concern the determination of an applicant’s civil rights or obligations or of a criminal charge against him, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the Convention’.

Citations:

(2005) 41 EHRR 494

Statutes:

Duropean Convention on Human Rights 6(1)

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: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.463306

Kaminski v Judicial Authority of Poland: Admn 2010

The court refused to strike out appeals against extradition orders, where no or only plainly inadequate grounds were stated in the notice of appeal. It did so on the basis that the inclusion of grounds was a matter for rules (in which connection the court also thought that the rules made no provision for grounds).

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 2772 (Admin)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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.

Extradition

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.463304

Piaggio (Germany): 14 Feb 2007

Court of Cassation Sez 6 (Italy). The appellant challenged the issue by the Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office of a European Arrest Warrant on the ground that it should have been issued and signed by a judge.
Held: The argument failed: ‘The claim alleging breach of article 1(3) of Law no 69 of 2005 on the ground that the EAW was not signed by a judge is completely unfounded.
The provision allegedly requiring signature by a judge does not refer to the EAW, as the appellant mistakenly claims, but to the precautionary measure on the basis of which the warrant was issued: in the present case, it is in fact the arrest warrant issued by the Hamburg District Magistrate’s Court on 24 August 2005, regularly signed by Judge Reinke.
The guarantee specified in the aforesaid article1(3) does not relate to the act requesting the Member State to grant extradition but is directly connected with the custodial measure, that is to say it is a substantial guarantee concerned with the basic conditions underlying the EAW, which must be subject to jurisdiction. In this procedure, the true guarantee of personal freedom is not the fact that the EAW is issued by a judicial authority but the fact that the warrant is based on a judicial measure.
Moreover, article 6 of the framework decision leaves to the individual Member State the task of determining the judicial authority responsible for issuing (or executing) a European Arrest Warrant, and the Italian implementing law, with regard to the active extradition procedure, provides for certain cases in which the Public Prosecutor’s office is to be responsible for issuing the EAW (article 28 of Law no 69/2005).
Essentially, the alleged breach of the law in respect of the fact that the EWA was signed by the Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office, must be excluded.’

Citations:

Unreported, 14 Feb 2007

Cited by:

CitedAssange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority SC 30-May-2012
The defendant sought to resist his extradition under a European Arrest Warrant to Sweden to face charges of sexual assaults. He said that the prosecutor who sought the extradition was not a judicial authority within the Framework Decision.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Extradition

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.459854

Schreiber v Canada (Attorney General): 12 Sep 2002

SCC (Supreme Court of Canada) International law – Sovereign immunity – Attornment to Canadian court’s jurisdiction exception – Germany initiating extradition process against Canadian citizen – Citizen arrested by RCMP and spending eight days in jail – Citizen suing Germany seeking damages for personal injuries suffered as a result of his arrest and detention in Canada – Whether Germany immune from jurisdiction of Canadian courts – Whether attornment to Canadian court’s jurisdiction exception applicable so as to deprive Germany of its immunity from instant action – Whether Germany waived its immunity from lawsuits in Canadian courts when it initiated extradition process – State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18, s. 4(2)(b).
International law – Sovereign immunity — Personal injury exception — Scope of exception — Germany initiating extradition process against Canadian citizen — Citizen arrested by RCMP and spending eight days in jail — Citizen suing Germany seeking damages for personal injuries suffered as a result of his arrest and detention in Canada — Whether Germany immune from jurisdiction of Canadian courts — Whether personal injury exception applicable so as to deprive Germany of its immunity from instant action — Whether exception distinguishes between jure imperii and jure gestionis acts — Whether exception applies only to claim of physical injury — State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18, s. 6(a).
Statutes — Interpretation — Bilingual statutes — Personal injury exception to state immunity — Meaning of expression ‘personal injury’ — Whether French version best reflects common intention of legislator found in both versions — Whether amendment made by Federal Law-Civil Law Harmonization Act to English version substantively changed the law — Purpose of harmonization legislation — State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18, s. 6(a) — Federal Law-Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1, S.C. 2001, c. 4, s. 121.

Judges:

McLachlin, Beverley; Gonthier, Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ

Citations:

[2002] SCJ No 63, [2002] 3 SCR 269, [2002] SCC 62

Links:

SCC

Cited by:

CitedThe Federal Republic of Nigeria v Ogbonna EAT 12-Jul-2011
nigeria_ogbonnaEAT2011
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – State immunity
A claim for compensation for psychiatric illness caused by unlawful discrimination is a claim for ‘personal injury’ within the meaning of section 5 of the State . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, International, Extradition

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.443606

In re Avishalom Sarig: 26 Mar 1993

An extradition request came from the United States. The applicant resisted saying that the conviction was not final.
Held: The court should examine the nature of the conviction itself. The conviction of the fugitive in his absence was treated as final because if he were returned the court would have a discretion whether or not to set that conviction aside. Evans LJ said: ‘The question is, does the applicant have a right to trial of the alleged or admitted extradition crime, notwithstanding the conviction which has been recorded?’

Judges:

Evans LJ

Citations:

[1993] COD 472, CO/2643/92

Cited by:

CitedCaldarelli v Court of Naples HL 30-Jul-2008
The appellant challenged his extradition saying that the European Arrest Warrant under which he was held wrongly said that he was convicted, whilst he said he was wanted for trial. He had been tried in his absence, and the judgment and sentence were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.276452

Athanassiadis v Government of Greece (Note): 1971

The appellant was properly extradited as a convicted person since the conviction, though in his absence was not in contumacy.

Citations:

[1971] AC 282

Cited by:

CitedCaldarelli v Court of Naples HL 30-Jul-2008
The appellant challenged his extradition saying that the European Arrest Warrant under which he was held wrongly said that he was convicted, whilst he said he was wanted for trial. He had been tried in his absence, and the judgment and sentence were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.276451

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.’

Judges:

Kennedy LJ

Citations:

CO/2853/2002, Unreported, 31 October 2002k

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.247671

Migliorelli v Government of Italy: QBD 27 Jan 2006

The defendant resisted extradition to Italy. He said that he had been tried in his absence, and that the proceedings had been unfair even though he had absented himself from the trial.
Held: Extradition was refused. The conviction had been based solely upon the evidence of co-accused who stood to gain from the conviction of the defendant. He would have had no chance to cross-examine the deponents. The system in Italy had since been revised.

Judges:

Smith LJ, Cresswell J

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.240162

The Republic of Argentina v Mellino: 1987

(Supreme Court of Canada) A principle underlying extradition proceedings is: ‘Our courts must assume that [the defendant] will be given a fair trial in the foreign country. Matters of due process generally are to be left for the courts to determine at the trial there as they would be if he were to be tried here. Attempts to pre-empt decisions on such matters, whether arising through delay or otherwise, would directly conflict with the principles of comity on which extradition is based.’

Judges:

Lamer J

Citations:

[1987] 1 SCR 536

Cited by:

CitedNoel Heath and Glenroy Matthew v The Government of the United States of America PC 28-Nov-2005
PC (St. Christopher and Nevis) The defendants resisted extradition to the US to face charges relating to importating of unlawful drugs.
Held: There was nothing in the arguments proposed to support an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Extradition

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.237283

Regina v Bow Street Magistrates ex parte Government of the United States of America: QBD 13 May 1998

Judges:

Kennedy LJ and Blofeld J

Citations:

[1999] QB 847

Statutes:

Computer Misuse Act 1990 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

FollowedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Bignell and Another QBD 6-Jun-1997
Policemen were convicted by the stipendiary magistrate of an offence under 1990 Act. They had requested a police computer operator to obtain information from the Police National Computer about the ownership and registration of two cars for their own . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.236579

Government of Belgium v Postlethwaite: HL 1988

The court should not apply the strict canons which are appropriate to the construction of domestic legislation to extradition treaties. Extradition treaties, and extradition statutes, ought to be accorded a broad and generous construction so far as the texts permits it in order to facilitate extradition.
Lord Bridge of Harwich said: ‘It must be remembered that the reciprocal rights and obligations which the high contracting parties confer and accept are intended to serve the purpose of bringing to justice those who are guilty of grave crimes committed in either of the contracting states. To apply to extradition treaties the strict canons appropriate to the construction of domestic legislation would often tend to defeat rather than to serve this purpose.’

Judges:

Lord Bridge of Harwich

Citations:

[1988] AC 924

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.235137

In re Castioni: 1891

Extradition was refused where in the heat of an attack on an arsenal and the municipal palace of a Swiss canton by persons dissatisfied with the government, the fugitive had shot and killed a member of the state council. The offence was a political act. The court expounded the ‘political incidence theory’. Things ‘may be done for the purpose of furthering and in furtherance of a political rising, even though it is an act which may be deplored and lamented, as even cruel and against all reason, by those who can calmly reflect upon it after the battle is over.’

Judges:

Hawkins J

Citations:

[1891] QB 149

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188807

Atkinson v Government of the United States: HL 1969

The House heard an appeal from the magistrates’ refusal to commit the accused in the course of extradition proceedings.
Held: There is no abuse of process jurisdiction in extradition proceedings. There is no power to state a case in relation to committal proceedings.
Lord Reid said: ‘It is now well recognised that the court has power to expand procedure laid down by statute if that is necessary to prevent infringement of natural justice and is not plainly contrary to the intention of Parliament. There can be cases where it would clearly be contrary to natural justice to surrender a man although there is sufficient evidence to justify committal. Extradition may be either because the man is accused of an extradition crime or because he has been convicted in the foreign country of an extradition crime. It is not unknown for convictions to be obtained in a few foreign countries by improper means, and it would be intolerable if a man so convicted had to be surrendered. Parliament can never have so intended when the Act of 1980 was passed. But the Act does provide a safeguard. The Secretary of State always has power to refuse to surrender a man committed to prison by the magistrate. It appears to me that Parliament must have intended the Secretary of State to use that power whenever in his view it would be wrong, unjust or oppressive to surrender the man.’
Lord Upjohn said: ‘Of course, in a most literal sense, in making an order of committal the magistrates are making a judicial order or determination; it is a judicial proceeding and it is an order or determination in the sense that in the result the accused then stands his trial . . But here there is no judicial determination of the rights of the parties in that sense; no ‘rights’ are decided. All that the committing magistrates have ‘decided’ or ‘determined’ is that there is prima facie case which should go before the adjudicating tribunal; they are acting judicially but they are not truly an adjudicating body at this stage, they are merely carrying out a step in the complex of proceedings which by our law precedes the trial of an indictable offence.’

Judges:

Lord Reid, Lord Upjohn

Citations:

[1971] AC 197, [1969] 3 All ER 1317

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1980

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina (Kashamu) v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another; Regina (Kashamu) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court; Regina (Makhlulif and Another) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court QBD 23-Nov-2001
Where a magistrates’ court heard an application for extradition, it was within its proper ambit to assess the lawfulness of the detention of the suspect in the light of the Human Rights Convention, but not to stray onto issues which were only for . .
AppliedRegina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Sinclair; Sinclair v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1991
The applicant had left the USA after conviction, but before his prison term commenced, and a warrant issued. Nine years later he was arrested in the UK, and extradition sought. He said that the extradition was time-barred under the Order. The . .
AppliedStreames v Copping 1985
The court considered the power to require magistrates to state a case on an interloctory issue.
Held: Where the Justices had not made a final determination they had no jurisdiction to state a case. Section 111 applies only to a final . .
CitedDonnachie, Regina (on the Application of) v Cardiff Magistrates’ Court Admn 27-Jul-2007
The defendant appealed refusal of the district judge to state a case on the basis of having no jurisdiction.
Held: Where the magistrate is acting not as an Examining Magistrate, but is deciding a preliminary issue as to jurisdiction, his . .
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.

Extradition, Natural Justice, Magistrates

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.180562

Mamatkulov and Abdurasulovic v Turkey: ECHR 6 Feb 2003

A retrospective complaint of extradition to Uzbekistan was made. The applicants sought to resist their extradition from Turkey to Uzbekistan, saying they would be tortured.
Held: Convention states must comply with orders made by the European Court of Human Rights. Turkey had failed to comply with interim measures ordered and was in breach of its duties under art 34. It was not established that the applicants had been denied a fair trial, and accordingly no issue was held to arise under article 6(1) of the Convention.

Citations:

Times 13-Mar-2003, (2003) 14 BHRC 149, 46827/99, [2003] ECHR 68, 46951/99

Links:

Worldlii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 34

Cited by:

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 . .
CitedEM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimant challenged the respondent’s decision to order the return of herself and her son to Lebanon.
Held: The test for whether a claimant’s rights would be infringed to such an extent as to prevent their return home was a strict one, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Extradition

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.179810

Minister for Justice and Equality (Defaillances Du Systeme Judiciaire) (European Arrest Warrant – Grounds for Refusal To Execute): ECJ 25 Jul 2018

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Article 1(3) – Surrender procedures between Member States – Conditions for execution – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 47 – Right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal

Judges:

K Lenaerts P

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:586, [2018] WLR(D) 515, [2018] EUECJ C-216/18PPU

Links:

WLRD, Bailii

Statutes:

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 47

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

OpnionMinister for Justice and Equality (Defaillances Du Systeme Judiciaire) (European Arrest Warrant – Grounds for Refusal To Execute – Opinion) ECJ 28-Jun-2018
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European arrest warrant – Grounds for refusal to execute – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 47 – Right to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, European, Human Rights

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.634091

ML, Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Bremen intervening (Conditions De Detention En Hongrie): ECJ 4 Jul 2018

Fundamental Rights – Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584 / JHA – European arrest warrant – Grounds for refusal of enforcement – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 4 – Prohibition of treatment inhuman and degrading conditions – Conditions of detention in the issuing Member State

Citations:

Fundamental Rights – Opinion, C-220/18, [2018] EUECJ C-220/18PPU – O, [2018] EUECJ C-220/18PPU

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Jurisdiction:

European

Human Rights, Extradition

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620022