Category: Extradition

Lees v Government of Norway: QBD 1 Nov 2000

When considering an extradition application, a sentence which had been suspended in its operation was to be considered still as imprisonment in the context of asking what was the potential ‘punishment awarded’ The provisions of the Convention must be looked at in a broad and sensible way.

Citations:

Times 01-Nov-2000, Gazette 02-Nov-2000

Statutes:

European Convention on Extradition 1991 Cmd 1762 Art 2.1, European Convention on Extradition 1991 Cmd 1762 Art 2.1

Extradition

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82983

In Re Pinochet Ugarte: QBD 7 Jan 2000

In extradition proceedings which had been before the House of Lords it might be right for the papers to be served on interested third parties and human rights organisations. At that level, the matter discussed were primarily legal. However when the matter was at divisional level or below there had to be overwhelming reason for such bodies to be party to what were essentially criminal proceedings. No such reason was shown here, and no papers would be served.

Citations:

Gazette 07-Jan-2000, Times 16-Feb-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Regina 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 . .

Cited by:

See Also – Regina 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.

Criminal Practice, Extradition, Information

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82120

In Re Schmidt: HL 1 Jul 1994

The appellant sought to persuade the House that in extradition proceedings the courts enjoyed a similar jurisdiction to that exercised in Bennett.
Held: The appeal failed. The High Court has no inherent power to intervene in extradition proceedings outside the terms of the Act. ‘Accordingly, the position now is that in extradition proceedings under the Act of 1989 the High Court has power to intervene only in the circumstances predicated by the Act and has no inherent Common Law supervisory power as contended for by the applicant. The principal safeguard for the subject of extradition proceedings therefore remains in the general discretion conferred upon the Secretary of State by Parliament in Section 12. ‘
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle said: ‘My Lords, I summarise my conclusions on this branch of the case thus. Atkinson v United States of America Government [1971] AC 197 decided that Parliament had excluded the jurisdiction of the courts to refuse to surrender a person under the 1870 Act when to do so would be unjust or oppressive. R v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex p Narang [1978] AC 247 emphasised that the statutory powers conferred upon the courts by the 1881 Act in relation to the Empire had been considerably restricted by section 8(3) of the 1967 Act. R v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex p Sinclair [1991] 2 AC 64 pointed out that the re-enactment of section 8(3) in section 11(3) of the Act of 1989 demonstrated that in relation to foreign countries no discretion to refuse the return of a foreign fugitive had previously existed. The dicta in Government of Australia v Harrod [1975] 1 WLR 745 and In re Osman, 28 February 1992 were obiter. R v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, Ex p Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42 related to the very different situation of the power to stay an English prosecution. Accordingly, the position now is that in extradition proceedings under the 1989 Act the High Court has power to intervene only in the circumstances predicated by the Act and has no inherent common law supervisory power as contended for by the applicant. The principal safeguard for the subject of extradition proceedings therefore remains in the general discretion conferred upon the Secretary of State by Parliament in section 12. It follows that the Divisional Court were correct in concluding that the decisions in Atkinson and Sinclair had not been affected by Bennett and should be followed.’

Judges:

Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle

Citations:

Times 01-Jul-1994, Gazette 02-Nov-1994, Independent 06-Jul-1994, [1995] 1 AC 399

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 11(3) 12

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (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 . .
Cited – Regina 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. . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81615

Pisciotti v Bundesrepublik Deutschland: ECJ 10 Apr 2018

Non-Discrimination – Extradition To The United States of America – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the Union – Articles 18 and 21 TFEU – Extradition to the United States of America of a national of a Member State who has exercised his right to freedom of movement – Extradition agreement between the European Union and that third State – Scope of EU law – Prohibition on extradition applied only to own nationals – Restriction on free movement – Justification based on the prevention of impunity – Proportionality – Informing the Union citizen’s Member State of origin

Citations:

C-191/16, [2018] EUECJ C-191/16, [2018] WLR(D) 209, [2017] EUECJ C-191/16_O

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Extradition

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608644

Cebula v Nation: Admn 16 Apr 2019

Renewed application for bail by the requested person. s.4(2B) of the Bail Act 1976 displaces the statutory presumption in favour of bail when a requested person has been convicted of an offence for which a European Arrest Warrant (‘EAW’) has been issued.

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 3651 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Bail Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Extradition

Updated: 30 March 2022; Ref: scu.651346

Purcell and Another v Public Prosecutor of Antwerp and Another: Admn 31 Jul 2017

Adjourned hearing of two joined applications against decisions to order the extradition of individuals to Belgium pursuant to European arrest warrants. The decisions are challenged on the basis that prison conditions in Belgium violate the appellants’ rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Judges:

Hamblen LJ, Ouseley J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1981 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition, Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.593602

Turek v Regional Court In Gliwice Poland: Admn 2011

the issue was whether the conduct relied upon as justifying extradition to Poland would constitute a breach of UK law. The allegation was possession of a gas gun without the required licence. The relevant UK offence was said to be a breach of section 5(1)(b) of the 1968 Act. The expert said there was nothing to suggest that the pistol had been modified, that it would be capable of discharging gas cartridges, and: ‘Although guns of this type are advertised as including the gas firing capability, it is my opinion that this is no more than the identification of a marketing opportunity by those selling such items in countries including Germany and France where it is permitted to possess CS cartridges for self-defence purposes; as the pistols could be used for this purpose in addition to firing blanks, why not highlight this capacity, and perhaps increase sales? This is not to say that pistols with barrel blockages are specifically designed for that purpose.’ It was argued that it was perfectly possible to construct a firearm pistol, the barrel of which is totally blocked and which vents in some other more innocuous manner.
Held: Silber J said: ‘To my mind, the very fact that these weapons can be used for the discharge of gas and emergency bullets shows that they must have been designed for that purpose, otherwise it is difficult to see why they are capable of fulfilling this function, which seems to be an integral part of it.’

Judges:

Silber J

Citations:

[2011] EWHC 1556 (Admin)

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 64(1) 64(3), Firearms Act 1968 5(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Rhodes CACD 20-Jan-2015
Appeal from conviction on 22 counts of possessing, purchasing or acquiring, manufacturing, selling or transferring a prohibited weapon, contrary to section 5(1) (b) of the Firearms Act 1968. He had sold guns which were incapable of firing bullets, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 27 March 2022; Ref: scu.655467