McKinnon v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 23 Jan 2009

Judges:

Lord Justice Maurice Kay
Mr Justice Simon

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 170 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoMcKinnon v USA and Another Admn 3-Apr-2007
The defendant appealed an order for his extradition. He had used his computer in London to access remotely defence and other government computers in the USA, and deleted files and copied others onto his own computer. He had been offered a deal if he . .
See AlsoMcKinnon 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 . .

Cited by:

See AlsoMcKinnon, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Home Affairs Admn 31-Jul-2009
Assurances for Extradition
Extradition of the defendant was sought to the US to face allegations of hacking into defence computers there. He said this would infringe his article 3 rights, saying that he suffered Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Held: The application failed. US . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.282620

HH 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 in the light of the case of ZH.
Held: HH and PH’s appeals failed, but that of FK succeeded. Though there are similarities and differences between extradition and immigration and domestic criminal cases, a court must still take care to examine the effect on family life. There is no test of exceptionality, the public interest in extradition and that those guilty of offences should receive appropriate punishment must be balanced against a duty not to interfere in private and family life. The court must be careful not to create a safe haven for fugitives, and should show respect for foreign jurisdictions. The nature and seriousness of the offences and any effect of delay must be allowed for. In summary, an interference with family life will usually have to be severe to outweight the public interests in effective extradition.
The court contrasted and compared the laws of extradition and domestic criminal process.
Lord Kerr said: ‘Article 3.1 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child dated 20 November 1989 provides that ‘in all actions concerning children . . the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration’ . . The word ‘concerning’ in article 3.1, like the phrase ‘relating to’ in article 24.2, encompasses actions with indirect, as well as direct, effect upon children: the ZH (Tanzania) case, para 26 (Lady Hale). The rights of children under article 8 must be examined through the prism of article 3.1: see paras 21 to 23 of the same case.’

Judges:

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lady Hale, Lord Mance, Lord Judge, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Brown

Citations:

[2012] UKSC 25, [2012] 3 WLR 90, UKSC 2011/0128, [2013] 1 AC 338, [2012] HRLR 25, [2012] 4 All ER 539

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003, European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedKakis v Government of the Republic of Cyprus HL 1978
Kakis’ extradition was sought by Cyprus in relation to an EOKA killing in April 1973. Although a warrant for Kakis’ arrest had been issued that very night, he had escaped into the mountains and remained hidden for 15 months. Subsequently, he settled . .
CitedNorris v Government of United States of America SC 24-Feb-2010
The defendant faced extradition to the USA on charges of the obstruction of justice. He challenged the extradition on the basis that it would interfere with his article 8 rights to family life, given that the offence was merely ancillary, the result . .
Appeal fromF-K, Regina (on The Application of) v Polish Judicial Authority Admn 19-Jan-2012
The defendant sought to resist the European Arrest Warrant, saying that her extradition would breach her and her family’s human right to a family life. Since fleeing Poland, she had lived in the UK and now had young children attanding school. . .
Appeal fromHH, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court Admn 11-May-2011
The defendant appealed against her extradition under a European Arrest Warrant, saying that an order would be a disproportionate interference in her, and family’s, human rights to a family life. . .
CitedZH (Tanzania) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 1-Feb-2011
The respondent had arrived and claimed asylum. Three claims were rejected, two of which were fraudulent. She had two children by a UK citizen, and if deported the result would be (the father being unsuitable) that the children would have to return . .
CitedRodrigues Da Silva and Hoogkamer v The Netherlands ECHR 31-Jan-2006
A Brazilian mother came to the Netherlands in 1994 and set up home with a Dutch national but not applying for a residence permit. In 1996 they had a daughter who became a Dutch national. In 1997 they split up and the daughter remained with her . .
CitedUner v The Netherlands ECHR 18-Oct-2006
(Grand Chamber) The court considered the application of article 8 considerations in extradition and similar proceedings, and said: ‘the best interests and well-being of the children, in particular the seriousness of the difficulties which any . .
CitedBeoku Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 25-Jun-2008
The appellant had arrived from Sierra Leone and obtained student permits. When they expired he sought asylum, citing his family’s persecution after a coup, and that fact that other members of his family now had indefinite leave, and he said that an . .
CitedWellington Regina, (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 10-Dec-2008
It was sought to extradite the defendant to face trial for two alleged murders. He now challenged the order for his extradition saying that his treatment in Missouri would amount to inhuman or degrading punishment in that if convicted he would face . .
CitedNeulinger And Shuruk v Switzerland ECHR 6-Jul-2010
(Grand Chamber) The Swiss Court had rejected the claimant mother’s claim, under article 13b of the Hague Convention, that there was a grave risk that returning the child to Israel would lead to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place him . .
CitedHarkins And Edwards v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Jan-2012
Each defendant objected to their proposed extradition to the US, saying that if extradited and convicted they would face the possibility of a death sentence or of a life sentence without the possibility of parole, each being incompatible with . .
IncorrectB v The District Court In Trutnov and Another (Two Czech Judicial Authorities) Admn 15-Apr-2011
In each case the defendant argued that his extradition would interfere with his article 8 rights to private and family life.
Held: Silber J said: ‘It is clear that the approach of the courts to article 8 rights has to be radically different in . .
CitedAronica v Germany ECHR 18-Apr-2002
(Decision as to admissibility) . .
CitedBH and Another v The Lord Advocate and Another SC 20-Jun-2012
The appellants wished to resist their extradition to the US to face criminal charges for drugs. As a married couple that said that the extraditions would interfere with their children’s rights to family life.
Held: The appeals against . .
CitedAttorney-General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher HL 1961
The defendant appealed against his conviction for the murder of his wife. The court allowed his appeal on the ground of a misdirection. The prosecutor having now appealed, he sought to plead insanity.
Held: The appeal was allowed on the new . .
CitedOlsson v Sweden (No 1) ECHR 24-Mar-1988
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 8; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses award – domestic proceedings; Costs . .
CitedLaunder v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Dec-1997
The Commission considered the admissibility of a complaint that the United Kingdom would violate articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 if it extradited him to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Held: The application was manifestly ill-founded: . .
CitedKleuver 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. . .
CitedGorczowska, Regina (on The Application of) v District Court In Torun Poland Admn 8-Feb-2012
The defendant appealed against an order for her extradition to Poland to serve a sentence for possessof drugs imposed in 2006. Since living here she had given birth to a child, and they lived with her father.
Held: It would not be . .
CitedRegina v Sectretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Razgar etc HL 17-Jun-2004
The claimant resisted removal after failure of his claim for asylum, saying that this would have serious adverse consequences to his mental health, infringing his rights under article 8. He appealed the respondent’s certificate that his claim was . .
CitedHM Advocate, Re 4th Criminal Court of Lisbon, A Porugese Judicial Authority HCJ 9-Dec-2011
The Lord Advocate appealed against dismissal of extradition proceedings against the two defendants. . .
CitedKing v The United Kingdom ECHR 26-Jan-2010
Mr King was accused of being a member of a gang engaged in a conspiracy to import large quantities of ecstasy into Australia. He appealed against extradition saying that this would interfere with his article 8 rights. He had in the United Kingdom . .
CitedHuang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .

Cited by:

CitedBH and Another v The Lord Advocate and Another SC 20-Jun-2012
The appellants wished to resist their extradition to the US to face criminal charges for drugs. As a married couple that said that the extraditions would interfere with their children’s rights to family life.
Held: The appeals against . .
CitedZoumbas v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 27-Nov-2013
The appellant challenged a decision that he did not qualify for asylum or humanitarian protection and that his further representations were not a fresh human rights claim under paragraph 353 of the Immigration Rules. He argued that the return to the . .
CitedSG and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 18-Mar-2015
The court was asked whether it was lawful for the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation imposing a cap on the amount of welfare benefits which can be received by claimants in non-working households, equivalent to the net median earnings . .
CitedNzolameso v City of Westminster SC 2-Apr-2015
The court was asked ‘When is it lawful for a local housing authority to accommodate a homeless person a long way away from the authority’s own area where the homeless person was previously living? ‘ The claimant said that on applying for housing she . .
CitedLord Advocate (Representing The Taiwanese Judicial Authorities) v Dean SC 28-Jun-2017
(Scotland) The respondent was to be extradited to Taiwan to serve the balance of a prison term. His appeal succeeded and the order quashed on the basis that his treatment in the Taiwanese prison system would infringe his human rights. The Lord . .
CitedGoldtrail Travel Ltd v Onur Air Tasimacilik As SC 2-Aug-2017
At first instance the appellant had dishonestly assisted another party to defraud the respondent, and ordered payment of substantial damages. The defendant, non-resident, sought to appeal, and the respondent asked the court to order payment into . .
CitedHer Majesty’s Attorney General v Akhter and Another CA 14-Feb-2020
Islamic Nikah Ceremony did not create a marriage
The parties had undertaken, in 1998, an Islamic marriage ceremony, a Nikah. They both knew at the time that to be effective in UK law, there would need to be a civil ceremony, and intended but did not achieve one. The parties having settled their . .
CitedKonecny v District Court In Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic SC 27-Feb-2019
K had been convicted and sentenced in his absence. His extradition was requested under an EAW which asserted that it was based upon an enforceable judgment, but that he had an unqualified right to be retried. He argued that the delay (since 2004 for . .
CitedDA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 15-May-2019
Several lone parents challenged the benefits cap, saying that it was discriminatory.
Held: (Hale, Kerr LL dissenting) The parents’ appeals failed. The legislation had a clear impact on lone parents and their children. The intention was to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Human Rights, Criminal Sentencing

Updated: 07 February 2022; Ref: scu.460539

Agardi v Penitentiary Judge of The Metropolitan Court, Budapest, Hungary: Admn 30 Oct 2014

Whether or not the High Court has jurisdiction to extend the time in which a non-British citizen who is subject to an extradition order of a District Judge under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 (‘the EA’) can make an appeal, notwithstanding a failure to comply with the strict time limits imposed by section 26(4) of the EA and notwithstanding the decisions of the House of Lords in Mucelli v Government of Albania; Moulai v Deputy Public Prosecutor de Creteil, France[1] and the Supreme Court in Pomiechowski v District Court of Legnica, Poland; Halligen v Secretary of State for the Home Department.[2] If the court has jurisdiction to extend the time limit there would then be a subsidiary question of whether time should be extended on the facts of this case.

Judges:

Lord Justice Aikens
Mr Justice Ouseey
Mrs Justice Thirlwall

Citations:

[2014] EWHC 3433 (Admin), [2016] 1 WLR 3009, [2016] 1 All ER 745

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 06 February 2022; Ref: scu.538200

Szegfu v Court of Pecs Hungary: Admn 24 Jun 2015

The court considered the statutory test to be applied on a request for an extension of the day time limit for appealing from an order for extradition.
Held: The correct interpretation of section 26(5) permitted no distinction between the conduct of the person and the conduct of their legal representative, so that the legal representative’s conduct was to be attributed to the person with the consequence that if the legal representative had not done everything reasonably possible to ensure that the notice was given as soon as it could be given, the High Court should not entertain the application for leave to appeal.

Judges:

Burnett LJ, Cox J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1764 (Admin), [2016] 1 WLR 322, [2015] WLR(D) 273

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 26(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedO’Connor v Greece QBNI 15-Aug-2017
. .
CitedPublic Prosecutors Office of The Athens Court of Appeal v O’Connor SC 2-Feb-2022
(Northern Ireland) The extraditee’s solicitor had failed to serve a notice of appeal on the prosecutor within the time limit. The question was whether the solicitor’s failure was to be attributed to the client.
Held: The prosecutor’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.549445

O’Connor v Greece: QBNI 15 Aug 2017

Judges:

Morgan LCJ, Gillen LJ and Burgess J

Citations:

[2017] NIQB 77

Links:

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 26(5)

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Citing:

CitedSzegfu v Court of Pecs Hungary Admn 24-Jun-2015
The court considered the statutory test to be applied on a request for an extension of the day time limit for appealing from an order for extradition.
Held: The correct interpretation of section 26(5) permitted no distinction between the . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromPublic Prosecutors Office of The Athens Court of Appeal v O’Connor SC 2-Feb-2022
(Northern Ireland) The extraditee’s solicitor had failed to serve a notice of appeal on the prosecutor within the time limit. The question was whether the solicitor’s failure was to be attributed to the client.
Held: The prosecutor’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.671799

Public Prosecutors Office of The Athens Court of Appeal v O’Connor: SC 2 Feb 2022

(Northern Ireland) The extraditee’s solicitor had failed to serve a notice of appeal on the prosecutor within the time limit. The question was whether the solicitor’s failure was to be attributed to the client.
Held: The prosecutor’s appeal failed. The reference to the extraditee as a person occurred twice within the section, and the context gave no evident reason to understand it as also being imposed on the
individual’s agent or legal representative.

Judges:

Lord Reed, President
Lord Hamblen
Lord Leggatt
Lord Burrows
Lord Stephens

Citations:

[2022] UKSC 4

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 26(4)

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Citing:

Appeal fromO’Connor v Greece QBNI 15-Aug-2017
. .
CitedSzegfu v Court of Pecs Hungary Admn 24-Jun-2015
The court considered the statutory test to be applied on a request for an extension of the day time limit for appealing from an order for extradition.
Held: The correct interpretation of section 26(5) permitted no distinction between the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.671792

SAS, Regina (on The Application of) v Circuit Court In Zielona Gora: Admn 26 Jan 2015

Appeals against orders for extradition to Poland under European Arrest Warrants.

King J
[2015] EWHC 648 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
At AdminGoluchowski and SAS v District Court and Circuit Court In Poland SC 29-Jun-2016
The appellants challenged the effectiveness of European Arrest Warrants, saying that the requests were deficient in not providing adequate details of warrants issued in support of the decisions. They had been convicted and sentenced to terms of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569832

Vilnius City, the District Court of v Barcys: Admn 22 Mar 2007

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to apply the Rules to extend time to appeal against discharge of an extradition request. The notice of appeal was not filed (or served) within seven days.
Held: Latham LJ said: ‘I acknowledge the force of this argument. But it begs the question as to what power the court does have to extend time in the circumstances where there is an express statutory time limit. Section 28 does not in itself provide any power to extend time. And no other general provision in the 2003 Act giving such power was drawn to our attention. In so far as it brings into play rules of court, it only does so in the context of defining how a notice of appeal is ‘given’. The rules . . make it plain in paragraph (3(a) (a reference to CPR Part 52 paragraph 22.6A) that this is to be done by way of filing and serving the relevant notice. No power is given to extend the statutory time limit. Further as with the provision of the CPR Rule 3.9 the court’s general powers of management in Rule 3.1(2)(a) only give power to the court to extend time for compliance with a rule, practice direction or court order. It follows in my view, that there is no power to extend the statutory time limit in section 28(5).’

Latham LJ, Davis J
[2007] 1 WLR 3249, [2008] 1 All ER 733, [2007] EWHC 615 (Admin)
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003 28, Civil Procedure Rules
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedStockton-On-Tees Borough Council v Latif Admn 13-Feb-2009
The council appealed against a decision that the crown court had jurisdiction to extend the time for appeal against refusal of a private hire vehicle licence.
Held: The court did not have the jurisdiction it used: ‘The terms of the section 300 . .
AppliedGercans v The Government of Latvia Admn 27-Feb-2008
The court was asked whether there was jurisdiction in High court to hear an appeal under section 26(4) against extradition order. . .
MentionedStockton-On-Tees Borough Council v Latif Admn 13-Feb-2009
The council appealed against a decision that the crown court had jurisdiction to extend the time for appeal against refusal of a private hire vehicle licence.
Held: The court did not have the jurisdiction it used: ‘The terms of the section 300 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.250459

Regina 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 borders, if he had committed the acts alleged in the UK an offence would not have been committed, since the funds were transmitted from abroad, and the offences were extra-territorial.
Held: The act of appropriation occurred when the defendant assumed the rights of an owner. His sending of the telex was the last act he needed to do, and that would not be extra territorial. The evidence required was that upon which a properly directed jury could commit. Last, the procedure under the 1967 Act was to be similar to that in the 1870 Act. Accordingly the list of offences could be phrased in general terms, and was capable of amendment. As regards evidence from computer printouts, the provisions of subsection 2 were alternatives, and not cumulative, since section 68(1)(b) required any one of them to be present. If there was no internal evidence of malfunction, such a printout should be admitted under section 69. Once documents which may have had legal professional privilege had been produced that did not affect their later admission. Police powers of arrest and search were the same on a domestic crime as under the 1967 Act.
Lloyd LJ observed: ‘The practice in extradition cases has been that the English ‘offences’ are stated in the authority to proceed in very general terms. The magistrate is not, of course, concerned with whether the offence is made out in foreign law. He is concerned solely with whether the evidence would support committal for trial in England, if the conduct complained of had taken place in England: see In re Nielsen [1984] AC 606. So the magistrate is furnished at the commencement of the hearing with a schedule of charges based on the alleged conduct and formulated in accordance with English law. The schedule of charges is frequently amended in the course of the hearing.’

Lloyd LJ and French J
[1990] 1 WLR 277
Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 5 7(5) 8, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 68(1)(2), Theft Act 1968 (c. 60) 3(1), Extradition Act 1870
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Morris (David); Anderton v Burnside HL 2-Jan-1983
The defendants had been accused of theft. One switched labels on a joint of pork in a supermarket, and the other presented the meat with the now cheaper label for purchase.
Held: The appeals were dismissed. There can be no conviction for theft . .
CitedRegina v Navvabi CACD 1986
. .
CitedChan Man-sin v The Queen PC 1988
. .
AppliedAssociated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .
DistinguishedRegina 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 . .
CitedRegina v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Gardner QBD 1968
A person was not eligible for surrender to New Zealand, the requesting country, because the offences with which he was charged in New Zealand involved the obtaining of property by knowingly false representations as to future conduct. English . .
CitedCalcraft v Guest CA 1898
A trial had taken place in which the principal issue was the upper boundary of the plaintiff’s fishery. On appeal the defendant proposed to rely on new evidence discovered among the papers in another action tried over a hundred years before. The . .
CitedKajala v Noble CACD 1982
The best evidence rule does not generally exclude the admission of evidence of lesser quality. If such a rule exists, it applies only to documents in the possession of the party
Ackner LJ said: ‘The old rule, that a party must produce the best . .

Cited by:
ConsideredRegina (Michael Rottman) v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis and Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 24-Jul-2001
There is no residual common law power of entry for police to enter into premises to execute a search without first obtaining a warrant, beyond that contained in the Act. The Act was intended to provide a complete statement of the powers of entry for . .
CitedMasquerade Music Ltd and Others v Bruce Springsteen CA 10-Apr-2001
The respondent was a composer who sought to restrict the import of CDs containing his music into the UK. The appellants responded putting him to strict proof of his title. The title included assignments from a partnership to limited companies, but . .
CitedRegina v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis, ex parte Rottman HL 16-May-2002
The defendant had been arrested under an extradition warrant issued under the Act. The police had searched his premises, and found further evidence which was used to support the application for extradition. He challenged the collection and admission . .
CitedHolmes v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another Admn 20-Aug-2004
The applicant sought his release from imprisonment where he awaited extradition to Germany. He was suspected of an offence of deception. He said there was insufficient evidence that the offence alleged would be an offence here. The alleged offence . .
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, Evidence, Extradition, Police

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.175510

Goluchowski and SAS v District Court and Circuit Court In Poland: SC 29 Jun 2016

The appellants challenged the effectiveness of European Arrest Warrants, saying that the requests were deficient in not providing adequate details of warrants issued in support of the decisions. They had been convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment which were at first condition, but were now to be served. The appellants contende dthat the European Arrest warrant applications should have provided the details of domestic warrants issuedfor the enforcement of the sentences.
Held: The appeals failed. The Court recognised the difference in the practice arising as regards accusation and conviction cases, though no explicit difference was provided for in the 2003 Act.
In the case of SAS, the term imposed becme unconditional upon the failure of his appeal. The summons to report for detention issued upon that failure had no effect on the enforceability of the sentence and need not be particularised.
For G, his sentence was suspended subject to his compliance with certain conditions, and became activated by his breach of them. No domestic summons was relevant.
‘ In the light of Bob-Dogi, it is therefore clear under European Union law that, if information obtained under article 15 subsequently to the EAW shows that a European arrest warrant was in fact based on an ‘enforceable judgment’ or equivalent judicial decision, even though this was not fully or accurately ‘evidenced’ on its face, the EAW will be valid and enforceable. On the other hand, if subsequently obtained information undermines in a fundamental respect a statement in an EAW which on its face evidences an enforceable judgment or equivalent judicial decision, it could not be right to give effect to the EAW willy-nilly.’

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2016] UKSC 36, [2016] 3 CMLR 39, [2016] 1 WLR 2665, [2016] WLR(D) 345, [2017] 2 All ER 887, UKSC 2015/0073
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary
Extradition Act 2003 2(6)(c)
England and Wales
Citing:
At AdminGoluchowski v District Court In Elblag Poland Admn 4-Feb-2015
. .
CitedRegional Court In Tarnow Poland v Wojciechowski Admn 4-Nov-2014
. .
At AdminSAS, Regina (on The Application of) v Circuit Court In Zielona Gora Admn 26-Jan-2015
Appeals against orders for extradition to Poland under European Arrest Warrants. . .
CitedCriminal proceedings against Pupino ECJ 16-Jun-2005
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Articles 34 EU and 35 EU – Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA – Standing of victims in criminal proceedings – Protection of vulnerable . .
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 . .
CitedLouca v A German Judicial Authority SC 19-Nov-2009
The defendant resisted extradition saying that the European Arrest Warrant was defective in not revealing the existence of two earlier such warrants. He said that absence of such information would hinder a court which was concerned as to possible . .
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.
CitedBob-Dogi ECJ 1-Jun-2016
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European arrest warrant – Article 8(1)(c) – Obligation to include in the . .
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 . .
CitedCretu v Local Court of Suceava, Romania Admn 26-Feb-2016
. .
CitedDabas v High Court of Justice, Madrid HL 28-Feb-2007
The defendant sought to appeal his extradition to Spain to face terrorism charges. He complained that the certificate required under the 2003 Act could not be the European arrest warrant itself, that the offence did not satisfy the double . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 18 January 2022; Ref: scu.566210

Bob-Dogi: ECJ 1 Jun 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European arrest warrant – Article 8(1)(c) – Obligation to include in the European arrest warrant information concerning the existence of an ‘arrest warrant’ – No national arrest warrant issued prior to and separately from the European arrest warrant – Effect
An EAW: ‘must, in all cases, be based on one of the national judicial decisions referred to in the provision [viz article 8.1(c)], which may be, where relevant, the decision issuing a national arrest warrant.’

C-241/15, [2016] EUECJ C-241/15
Bailii
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
European
Cited by:
CitedGoluchowski and SAS v District Court and Circuit Court In Poland SC 29-Jun-2016
The appellants challenged the effectiveness of European Arrest Warrants, saying that the requests were deficient in not providing adequate details of warrants issued in support of the decisions. They had been convicted and sentenced to terms of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.564911

MN and Others: ECJ 21 Jan 2020

(Order) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584 / JHA – Article 6 (1) – Concept of ‘Issuing judicial authority’ – Effective judicial protection

C-813/19, [2020] EUECJ C-813/19PPU_CO, ECLI: EU: C: 2020: 31
Bailii
European

Criminal Practice, Extradition

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.654715

Criminal proceedings against SF (European Arrest Warrant): ECJ 11 Mar 2020

Timing of Extradition Return

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European arrest warrant – Article 5(3) – Surrender of the person concerned made subject to a guarantee that that person will be returned to the executing Member State in order to serve there a custodial sentence or a measure involving deprivation of liberty imposed on that person in the issuing Member State – Time of return – Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA – Article 3(3) – Scope – Article 8 – Adaptation of the sentence imposed in the issuing Member State – Article 25 – Enforcement of a sentence under Article 5(3) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA

C-314/18, [2020] EUECJ C-314/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:191, [2020] WLR(D) 191, [2019] EUECJ C-314/18_O
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii
European

Extradition

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.654930

Harmatos v King’s Prosecutor In Dendermond, Belgium: Admn 24 May 2011

[2011] EWHC 1598 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBucnys v Ministry of Justice SC 20-Nov-2013
The Court considered requests made by European Arrest Warrants for the surrender under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 of three persons wanted to serve sentences imposed upon their conviction in other member states of the European Union. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.523758

X (Mandat D’Arret Europeen – Double Incrimination): ECJ 3 Mar 2020

(European Arrest Warrant : Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European arrest warrant – Article 2(2) – Execution of a European arrest warrant – Removal of verification of the double criminality of the act – Conditions – Offence punishable by the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence for a maximum period of at least three years – Amendment of the criminal legislation of the issuing Member State between the date of the acts and the date of issue of the European arrest warrant – Version of the law to be taken into account in verifying the maximum sentence threshold of at least three years

C-717/18, [2020] EUECJ C-717/18, [2020] WLR(D) 132, ECLI:EU:C:2020:142, [2019] EUECJ C-717/18_O
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii
European

Extradition

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.654953