Category: Extradition

Lysiak v District Court Torun Poland: Admn 14 Oct 2015

In this conviction case, the Court attached great weight to the nine years the criminal proceedings in Poland took to come to trial and the further two and a half years it took for the conviction to be confirmed in appeal proceedings, when concluding that it would be disproportionate under article 8 to return the defendant to Poland.

Lord Justice Burnett
Mr Justice Hickinbottom
[2015] EWHC 3098 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Konecny 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.557127

Lewicki v Preliminary Investigation Tribunal of Napoli, Italy: Admn 18 May 2018

[2018] EWHC 1160 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Konecny 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.618113

Zdziaszek: ECJ 26 Jul 2017

Area of Freedom, Security and Justice : Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters : Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Surrender procedures between Member States – Conditions for execution – Grounds for optional non-execution – Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA – Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order – ‘Trial resulting in the decision’ – Legal proceedings amending or combining a sentence passed previously – Decision handing down a cumulative sentence – Decision handed down without the person concerned having appeared in person – Person convicted not having appeared in person at the trial in the context of his initial conviction, either at first instance or on appeal – Person represented by a legal counsellor in the appeal proceedings – Arrest warrant not providing any information in that regard – Consequences for the executing judicial authority

C-271/17, [2017] EUECJ C-271/17
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Cited – Konecny 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Extradition

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.593574

Wisniewski and Others v Regional Court of Wroclaw, Poland and Others: Admn 2 Mar 2016

The Court faced 3 appeals against extradition which raised issues as to the availability of the bar to extradition on the grounds of passage of time under section 14 of the 2003 Act in circumstances where a requested person had left the requesting state whilst subject to a suspended sentence of imprisonment which was activated thereafter in his absence.
Held: In such circumstances the human rights examination under section 21 would provide a safety net which would permit the effect of passage of time to be brought into account.

Lloyd Jones LJ and Holroyde J
[2016] EWHC 386 (Admin), [2016] 1 WLR 3750
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003 14, European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Konecny 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.560734

Imre v District Court In Szolnok (Hungary): Admn 14 Feb 2018

Treacy LJ and Males J
[2018] EWHC 218 (Admin)
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Konecny 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.605605

Konecny 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 the offence) was such as render the request unjust and oppressive. The court considered the delay rather after the trial in 2008, and concluded that the circumstances of the delay did not justify a finding that it would be unjust or oppressive to return the appellant, and that the public interest factors in favour of extradition outweighed the considerations relating to the appellant’s family and private life under article 8, even basing the ;latter finding from 2004. On appeal the High Court certified the question: ‘In circumstances where an individual has been convicted, but that conviction is not final because he has an unequivocal right to a retrial after surrender, is he ‘accused’ pursuant to section 14(a) of the 2003 Act, or ‘unlawfully at large’ pursuant to section 14(b) for the purposes of considering the ‘passage of time’ bar to surrender?’
Held: K’s appeal failed. The heart of the issue was the characterisation of the appellant as an accused person or a convicted person.
t the following principles should be applied by a court in this jurisdiction when
seeking to characterise a case as an accusation case or a conviction case [50]:
(1) The dichotomy drawn by the Framework Decision between accusation warrants and conviction warrants is a matter of EU law. The Framework Decision does not have direct effect but national implementing legislation should, so far as possible, be interpreted consistently with its terms.
(2) The court should seek to categorise the relevant facts by reference to their status and effects in the law and procedure of the member state of the requesting judicial authority.
(3) Ordinarily, statements made by the requesting judicial authority in the EAW or in supplementary communications will be taken to be an accurate account of its law and procedure but evidence may be admitted to contradict them.
(4) A person may properly be regarded as convicted for this purpose if the conviction is binding and enforceable under the law and procedure of the member state of the requesting authority.
(5) For this purpose, it is not a requirement that a conviction should be final in the sense of being irrevocable. In particular, a convicted person who has a right to a retrial may, nevertheless, be properly considered a convicted person for this purpose, provided that the conviction is binding and enforceable in the law and procedure of the member state of the requesting authority.
(6) While the view of the requesting judicial authority on the issue of characterisation cannot be determinative, the question whether a conviction is binding and enforceable will depend on the law of that member state.’

Lord Kerr, Lord Hodge, Lady Black, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Kitchin
[2019] UKSC 8, [2019] 2 All ER 655, [2019] 1 WLR 1586, UKSC 2017/0200
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, 2018 Dec 06 am Video, 2018 Dec 06 pm video
Extradition Act 2003, European Convention on Human Rights 8
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Konecny v District Court Czech Republic Admn 27-Sep-2017
. .
Cited – Kakis 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, ex parte Zezza HL 1983
In the context of an application for extradition, where the conviction was a ‘conviction for contumacy’ that phrase is not defined. It does not have an ordinary meaning in the English language. ‘Contumacy’ indicates insubordination or disobedience . .
Cited – Bikar and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Governor of HM Prison Brixton Admn 14-Feb-2003
The applicants, who had been convicted in absentia in the Czech Republic resisted their extradition under an accusation warrant on the ground that autrefois convict applied.
Held: As they had a right to request a new trial this was not a final . .
Cited – Office of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and others HL 17-Nov-2005
The defendant resisted extradition to Brussels saying that the offence had been committed in part in England. He had absconded and been convicted. Application was made for his return to serve his sentence. The offences associated with organisation . .
Cited – Dabas 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 . .
Cited – Caldarelli 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 . .
Cited – Sonea v Mehedinti District Court Admn 23-Jan-2009
The appellant was arrested under a conviction warrant which stated that in his absence he had been tried and convicted in Romania and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. He appealed against an order for his extradition contending that because he . .
Cited – Gomes 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 . .
Cited – Sandi v Craiova Court, Romania Admn 27-Nov-2009
Hickinbottom J observed that there is no reason why the same level of particularity of the circumstances of the offence is needed for a conviction warrant as for an accusation warrant. However, he went on to point out that, while the appropriate . .
Cited – Usti Nad Labem Regional Court (Czech Republic) v Janiga Admn 11-Mar-2010
Mr Janiga had absconded after the start of his trial in the Czech Republic. An EAW was issued. In the period between the issue of the warrant and the extradition hearing in the United Kingdom he was convicted and sentenced in his absence, although . .
Cited – Ruzicka v District Court of Nitra, Slovakia Admn 19-May-2010
An accusation warrant issued by the Slovakian judicial authority was valid notwithstanding the fact that Mr Ruzicka had already been convicted and sentenced in Slovakia because he had appealed against the conviction and sentence in circumstances in . .
Cited – Istanek, Regina (on The Application of) v District Court of Prerov, Czech Republic Admn 3-Feb-2011
The appellant had been convicted in the Czech Republic in his absence. He was entitled to a full retrial by virtue of section 306a of the Czech Penal code. A conviction EAW was issued for his surrender and his return was ordered. On behalf of the . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Campbell v Public Prosecutor of The Grande Instance Tribunal of St-Malo, France Admn 20-May-2013
Keith J was inclined to think that the appellant could not rely on the passage of time since the date of commission of the alleged offence because he faced a conviction warrant, but he nevertheless examined whether the delay from that date would . .
Cited – Rahman v County Court of Boulogne Sur Mer, France Admn 6-Oct-2014
A conviction warrant was founded on a conviction in absentia. It was common ground that Mr Rahman had had no notice of the proceedings leading to conviction and that the conviction could be set aside on his demand. The judge was referred to Campbell . .
Cited – Lysiak v District Court Torun Poland Admn 14-Oct-2015
In this conviction case, the Court attached great weight to the nine years the criminal proceedings in Poland took to come to trial and the further two and a half years it took for the conviction to be confirmed in appeal proceedings, when . .
Cited – Wisniewski and Others v Regional Court of Wroclaw, Poland and Others Admn 2-Mar-2016
The Court faced 3 appeals against extradition which raised issues as to the availability of the bar to extradition on the grounds of passage of time under section 14 of the 2003 Act in circumstances where a requested person had left the requesting . .
Cited – Zdziaszek ECJ 26-Jul-2017
Area of Freedom, Security and Justice : Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters : Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – . .
Cited – Tupikas ECJ 26-Jul-2017
Area of Freedom, Security and Justice : Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters : Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – . .
Cited – Imre v District Court In Szolnok (Hungary) Admn 14-Feb-2018
. .
Cited – Lewicki v Preliminary Investigation Tribunal of Napoli, Italy Admn 18-May-2018
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.634241

Rahman v County Court of Boulogne Sur Mer, France: Admn 6 Oct 2014

A conviction warrant was founded on a conviction in absentia. It was common ground that Mr Rahman had had no notice of the proceedings leading to conviction and that the conviction could be set aside on his demand. The judge was referred to Campbell and Cousins and was invited by counsel for the appellant to look at the full period of the delay either on abuse of process grounds or on article 8 grounds. The judge said that he shared the reservations of Ouseley J about simply proceeding down the article 8 route as a catch-all where the central point the appellant wanted to make was the change of circumstances caused by the passage of time since the offence was first committed. Noting that the definition of ‘unlawfully at large’ in section 68A of the 2003 Act did not apply to section 14, he considered that it was necessary to give it a meaning which avoided the absurdity of effectively preventing the appellant from pleading delay at all. He concluded that: ‘. . in effect a person remains accused of a crime for the purposes of the oppression limb of section 14 unless or until there has been a conviction from which he was required to participate from which he has absconded himself and is therefore a fugitive from justice. Such an approach avoids having to shoehorn the present problem either into abuse of process questions, where there is a more rigorous test and a requirement generally of absence of good faith or simply leaving it to a factor in the article 8 balance.’

Blake J
[2014] EWHC 4143 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Konecny 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.542537

Konecny v District Court Czech Republic: Admn 27 Sep 2017

Sir Wyn Williams,
(Sitting as a High Court Judge)
[2017] EWHC 2360 (Admin)
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8, Extradition Act 2003 14(b)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Konecny 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.597449

Tupikas: ECJ 26 Jul 2017

Area of Freedom, Security and Justice : Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters : Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Surrender procedures between Member States – Conditions for execution – Reasons for optional non-execution – Article 4a(1) introduced by Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA – Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order – ‘Trial resulting in the decision’ – Person concerned having appeared in person at first instance – Appeal proceedings involving a re-examination of the substance of the case – Arrest warrant providing no information making it possible to check whether the rights of the defence of the person convicted were upheld during the appeal proceedings

C-270/17, [2017] EUECJ C-270/17, [2017] WLR(D) 575
WLRD, Bailii
European
Cited by:
Cited – Konecny 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.593573

Cretu v Local Court of Suceava, Romania: Admn 26 Feb 2016

[2016] EWHC 353 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.560450

Campbell v Public Prosecutor of The Grande Instance Tribunal of St-Malo, France: Admn 20 May 2013

Keith J was inclined to think that the appellant could not rely on the passage of time since the date of commission of the alleged offence because he faced a conviction warrant, but he nevertheless examined whether the delay from that date would have been oppressive for the purposes of section 14 and concluded that it would now be an abuse of process to insist upon his return.

Keith J
[2013] EWHC 1288 (Admin)
Bailii
Extradition 2003
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Konecny v District Court In Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic SC 27-Feb-2019
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.509990

Gomes 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 decision in Kakis which effectively excluded delay as a consideration save in exceptional circumstances. Delay caused by the defendant’s own conduct was not a good reason for refusing extradition: ‘a substantial measure of clarity and certainty is required. If an accused . . deliberately flees the jurisdiction in which he has been bailed to appear, it simply does not lie in his mouth to suggest that the requesting state should share responsibility for the ensuing delay in bringing him to justice because of some subsequent supposed fault on their part, whether this be, as in his case, losing the file, or dilatoriness, or, as will often be the case, mere inaction through pressure of work and limited resources. We would not regard any of these circumstances as breaking the chain of causation (if this be the relevant concept) with regard to the effects of the accused’s own conduct. Only a deliberate decision by the requesting state communicated to the accused not to pursue the case against him, or some other circumstance which would similarly justify a sense of security on his part notwithstanding his own flight from justice, could allow him properly to assert that the effects of further delay were not ‘of his own choice and making’.’ The appellants in this case were classic fugitives, and could not prey the delay they had caused in support of their resistance to extradition.
Lord Brown stated: ‘The extradition process, it must be remembered, is only available for returning suspects to friendly foreign states with whom this country has entered into multilateral or bilateral treaty obligations involving mutually agreed and reciprocal commitments. The arrangements are founded on mutual trust and respect. There is a strong public interest in respecting such treaty obligations.’

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Mance and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[2009] 1 WLR 1038, [2009] 3 All ER 549, [2009] UKHL 21, Times 05-May-2009
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Goodyer and Gomes v Government of Trinidad and Tobago Admn 22-Aug-2007
The applicants complained of delays in their extraditions.
Held: ‘It seems to us that, whether the concurrent fault of the requesting state is regarded as keeping the chain of causation intact, albeit attenuated, or is regarded as an . .
Cited – Kakis 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Krzyzowski v Circuit Court In Gliwice, Poland Admn 23-Nov-2007
Extradition of the defendant to Poland was sought, the court saying he had fled his trial for burglaries in 1999. The defendant argued that his extradition would now be unfair.
Held: The judge was right to hold that his ruling of deliberate . .
Cited – La Torre v Italy Admn 20-Jun-2007
Laws LJ considered the decision in Kakis and said: ‘All the circumstances must be considered in order to judge whether the unjust/oppressive test is met. Culpable delay on the part of the State may certainly colour that judgment and may sometimes be . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Narang; Union of India v Narang HL 1978
The House considered an extradition request.
Held: Lord Keith of Kinkel said it would be sufficient to establish the primary facts on the balance of probabilities and for the court to form an opinion upon the facts established. It was . .
Cited – Lisowski v Regional Court of Bialystok (Poland) Admn 28-Nov-2006
The defendant resisted extradition for a fraud prosecution brought 11 years after the relevant events which occurred in 1995. He had come to England in 2000, and the first he heard of the accusation was when he was arrested in September 2006. It was . .
Cited – Woodcock v The Government of New Zealand QBD 14-Nov-2003
The applicant, a catholic priest, challenged his extradition for alleged offences of sexual abuse which had taken place in the 1980s, saying it would be an abuse now to prosecute him after such a delay.
Held: The case of R v B was of a . .
Cited – Samuel Knowles, Junior v United States of America and Another PC 24-Jul-2006
(The Bahamas) The respondent sought the extradition of the appellant to face drugs charges. The appellant said that if extradited, he would not receive a fair trial, having been declared publicly by the US President to be a drugs ‘kingpin’.
Cited – The State v Boyce PC 11-Jan-2006
(Trinidad and Tobago) The judge had wrongly directed the defendant’s acquittal of manslaughter. The prosecution sought a retrial.
Held: A retrial was refused. Lord Hoffmann noted that nine years had elapsed since the incident and said: ‘Their . .

Cited by:
Cited – Lord 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 . .
Cited – Konecny v District Court In Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic SC 27-Feb-2019
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.341607

Istanek, Regina (on The Application of) v District Court of Prerov, Czech Republic: Admn 3 Feb 2011

The appellant had been convicted in the Czech Republic in his absence. He was entitled to a full retrial by virtue of section 306a of the Czech Penal code. A conviction EAW was issued for his surrender and his return was ordered. On behalf of the appellant it was argued that he was, in truth, an accused person and not a convicted person and that the warrant was, accordingly, invalid.
Held: Laws LJ, delivering the only judgment, noted the apparently conflicting authorities and observed of Bikar, Janiga and Ruzicka that all three were cases where the result arrived at was in fact in conformity with the requesting state’s position on the question whether the proposed extraditee was to be treated as accused or convicted. However, in his view there was no reason to hold that in the result any of those cases was wrongly decided on its facts. He considered it plain that Sonea was correctly decided.

Laws J
[2011] EWHC 264 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Konecny v District Court In Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic SC 27-Feb-2019
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.431266

Sonea v Mehedinti District Court: Admn 23 Jan 2009

The appellant was arrested under a conviction warrant which stated that in his absence he had been tried and convicted in Romania and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. He appealed against an order for his extradition contending that because he had a right to a re-trial in Romania the warrant should have been drafted as an accusation warrant and was therefore invalid.
Held: This submission was rejected.
Scott Baker LJ, delivering the only judgment, considered that it was necessary to follow carefully and chronologically the structure of the 2003 Act and that it was liable to be misleading to pick out observations by judges concerned with earlier legislation.

Scott Baker LJ, Maddison J
[2009] EWHC 89 (Admin)
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Konecny v District Court In Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic SC 27-Feb-2019
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.280424

Ruzicka v District Court of Nitra, Slovakia: Admn 19 May 2010

An accusation warrant issued by the Slovakian judicial authority was valid notwithstanding the fact that Mr Ruzicka had already been convicted and sentenced in Slovakia because he had appealed against the conviction and sentence in circumstances in which the appeal had caused the conviction and sentence to cease to be valid. In these circumstances the court considered it plain that the conviction and sentence was not a final determination of the criminal process. Until the expiry of time within which to appeal the judgment was neither final nor enforceable. Accordingly, the accusation warrant was in correct form. The court approved the similar conclusion in Janiga.

Elias LJ and Keith J
[2010] EWHC 1819 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Usti Nad Labem Regional Court (Czech Republic) v Janiga Admn 11-Mar-2010
Mr Janiga had absconded after the start of his trial in the Czech Republic. An EAW was issued. In the period between the issue of the warrant and the extradition hearing in the United Kingdom he was convicted and sentenced in his absence, although . .

Cited by:
Cited – Konecny v District Court In Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic SC 27-Feb-2019
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.421039

Dabas 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 actionability rule and that the warrant did not set out the text of the law under which his extradition was sought.
Held: The defendant’s appeal was dismissed. The intention of the framework decision was to simplify and speed up extradition, with provisions for supplementary informatin to be provided direct between the courts involved. The Act required that a certificate be signed by a judge or officer to establish its reliability. The warrant included the required information. The court should be reluctant to add requirements not to be found in the Act or the Framework decision. (Lord Scott dissenting).

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Mance
[2007] 2 WLR 254, [2007] 2 All ER 641, [2007] 2 AC 31, [2007] UKHL 6, Times 05-Mar-2007
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003 64(2)(b), Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member states 2002/584/JHA; OJ 2002 L190
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Dabas v The High Court of Justice Madrid Spain Admn 4-May-2006
The defendant complained that the European arrest warrant under which he was held was not effective since it did not certify or specify an extradictable offence.
Held: Provided the relevant material required by the statute was clearly set out . .
Cited – Criminal 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 . .
Cited – Office of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and others HL 17-Nov-2005
The defendant resisted extradition to Brussels saying that the offence had been committed in part in England. He had absconded and been convicted. Application was made for his return to serve his sentence. The offences associated with organisation . .
Cited – Advocaten Voor De Wereld (Police and Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters) ECJ 3-May-2007
Europa Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters Articles 6(2) EU and 34(2)(b) EU Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States Approximation of . .

Cited by:
Cited – Hilali, Re; Regina (Hilali) v Governor of Whitewall Prison and Another HL 30-Jan-2008
The applicant had been detained pending his extradition. He complained that that continued detention became unlawful after fundamantal changes in the case. The telephone intercepts which were the basis of the extradition had been ruled unlawful and . .
Cited – Pilecki v Circuit Court of Legnica, Poland HL 6-Feb-2008
The defendant appealed against an extradition order made under a European Arrest Warrant to ensure that he served a sentence of imprisonment in Poland. The warrant was in respect of several sentences, some of which were for more and some for less . .
Cited – Norris 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 . .
Cited – Caldarelli 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 . .
Cited – Louca 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Magro CACD 8-Jul-2010
Each defendant appealed against confiscation orders made when the sentence imposed was an absolute or conditional discharge. They said that Clarke made such orders unlawful.
Held: The decision in Clarke was a difficult limitation on the . .
Cited – Assange 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.
Cited – Zakrzewski 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 . .
Cited – Bucnys 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Konecny v District Court In Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic SC 27-Feb-2019
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Leading Case

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.249333

Kakis 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 in England with the apparent approval of the Cyprus Government and so too did a Mr Alexandrou, Kakis’s only alibi witness, who swore that he would not return to give evidence in Cyprus. The House considered all the events that would not have happened had the trial of the accused taken place with ordinary promptitude and the extent to which they would result in prejudice to the accused in the conduct of the trial.
Held: Lord Diplock said: ‘Unjust’ I regard as directed primarily to the risk of prejudice to the accused in the conduct of the trail itself, ‘oppressive’ as directed to hardship of the accused resulting from changes in his circumstances that have occurred during the period to be taken into consideration; but there if room for overlapping, and between them they would cover all cases where to return him would not be fair. Delay in the commencement or conduct of extradition proceedings which is brought about by the accused himself by fleeing the country, concealing his whereabouts or evading arrest cannot, in my view, be relied upon as a ground for holding it to be either unjust or oppressive to return him. Any difficulties that he may encounter in the conduct of this defence in consequence of delay due to such cause are of his own choice and making. Save in the most exceptional circumstances it would be neither unjust nor oppressive that he should be required to accept them’.
Lord Edmund-Davies disagreed: ‘In my respectful judgement, on the contrary, the answer to the question of where responsibility lies for the delay may well have a direct bearing on the issues of injustice and oppression. Thus, the fact that the requesting government is shown to have been inexcusably dilatory in taking steps to bring the fugitive to justice may serve to establish both the injustice and the oppressiveness of making an order for his return, whereas the issue might be left in some doubt if the only known fact related to the extent of the passage of time, and it has been customary in practice to advert to that factor: see, for example, Reg v Governor of Pentonville Prison, ex parte Teja [1971] 2 QB 274, 290, per Lord Parker CJ and the speeches in this House in Reg v Governor of Pentonville Prison, ex parte Narang [1978] AC 247.’
Lord Keith of Kinkel said: ‘the case of Narang 1978 AC 247 also indicates that it may be relevant to consider the extent to which the passage of time has been due to dilatoriness on the part of the requesting authority.’
Lord Diplock said: ”Unjust’ I regard as directed primarily to the risk of prejudice to the accused in the conduct of the trial itself, ‘oppressive’ as directed to hardship to the accused resulting from changes in his circumstances that have occurred during the period to be taken into consideration; but there is room for overlapping, and between them they would cover all cases where to return him would not be fair. Delay in the commencement or conduct of extradition proceedings which is brought about by the accused himself by fleeing the country, concealing his whereabouts or evading arrest cannot, in my view, be relied upon as a ground for holding it to be either unjust or oppressive to return him. Any difficulties that he may encounter in the conduct of his defence in consequence of the delay due to such causes are of his own choice and making. Save in the most exceptional circumstances it would be neither unjust nor oppressive that he should be required to accept them.
As respects delay which is not brought about by the acts of the accused himself, however, the question of where responsibility lies for the delay is not generally relevant. What matters is not so much the cause of such delay as its effect; or, rather, the effects of those events which would not have happened before the trial of the accused if it had taken place with ordinary promptitude. So where the application for discharge under section 8(3) is based upon the ‘passage of time’ under paragraph (b) and not on absence of good faith under paragraph (c), the court is not normally concerned with what could be an invidious task of considering whether mere inaction of the requisitioning government or its prosecuting authorities which resulted in delay was blameworthy or otherwise. Your Lordships have no occasion to do so in the instant case.’

Diplock L, Edmund-Davies L, Keith of Kinkel L
[1978] 1 WLR 779, [1978] 2 All ER 634
Fugitive Offenders’ Act 1967 8(3)(b)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Abu Hamza CACD 28-Nov-2006
The defendant had faced trial on terrorist charges. He claimed that delay and the very substantial adverse publicity had made his fair trial impossible, and that it was not an offence for a foreign national to solicit murders to be carried out . .
Cited – Krzyzowski v Circuit Court In Gliwice, Poland Admn 23-Nov-2007
Extradition of the defendant to Poland was sought, the court saying he had fled his trial for burglaries in 1999. The defendant argued that his extradition would now be unfair.
Held: The judge was right to hold that his ruling of deliberate . .
Cited – Norris 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 . .
Cited – Goodyer and Gomes v Government of Trinidad and Tobago Admn 22-Aug-2007
The applicants complained of delays in their extraditions.
Held: ‘It seems to us that, whether the concurrent fault of the requesting state is regarded as keeping the chain of causation intact, albeit attenuated, or is regarded as an . .
Cited – Gomes 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – La Torre v Italy Admn 20-Jun-2007
Laws LJ considered the decision in Kakis and said: ‘All the circumstances must be considered in order to judge whether the unjust/oppressive test is met. Culpable delay on the part of the State may certainly colour that judgment and may sometimes be . .
Cited – Spanovic v Government of Croatia and Another Admn 15-May-2009
The appellant appealed against an order for his extradition to face charges of having committed war crimes. He said that his menta condition was such that ‘It is plain to us that the bar is set very high, and the graver the charge the higher the . .
Cited – Government of The Republic of South Africa v Dewani Admn 31-Jan-2014
. .
Cited – United States of America v Assange Admn 10-Dec-2021
Late evidence from requesting state was admissible
The USA sought A’s extradition. It had been previously refused on the grounds of expected suicide of A if subjected to US prison conditions.
Held: The order refusing extradition was quashed, and the matter referred to the Magistrates’ Court . .
Cited – Konecny v District Court In Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic SC 27-Feb-2019
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.187954

Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, ex parte Zezza: HL 1983

In the context of an application for extradition, where the conviction was a ‘conviction for contumacy’ that phrase is not defined. It does not have an ordinary meaning in the English language. ‘Contumacy’ indicates insubordination or disobedience in the face of the court, but the concept of a ‘conviction for contumacy’ is something with which our own law is not familiar. The words ‘conviction’ and ‘convicted’ are used in the Schedule with reference to fugitive criminals whose surrender is requested by a foreign state. The purpose of the definition is to ensure that a person convicted in contumacy in a foreign court is not to be treated as a convicted person but will be included in the category of an accused person for the purpose of the procedures set down. The definition assumes that there may be a conviction properly so described in some systems of foreign law that will make it necessary from time to time to draw this distinction.

Lord Roskill
[1983] 1 AC 46
Extradition Act 1870
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – In re Guisto (application for a writ of Habeas Corpus) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice) HL 3-Apr-2003
The applicant challenged an order for his extradition to the US. He had been convicted in his absence having absconded from bail.
Held: He had been arrested and held on the basis that he was a convicted person, but the procedure should have . .
Cited – Caldarelli 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 . .
Cited – Konecny v District Court In Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic SC 27-Feb-2019
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.180425

Usti Nad Labem Regional Court (Czech Republic) v Janiga: Admn 11 Mar 2010

Mr Janiga had absconded after the start of his trial in the Czech Republic. An EAW was issued. In the period between the issue of the warrant and the extradition hearing in the United Kingdom he was convicted and sentenced in his absence, although lawyers attended the hearing on his behalf. His lawyers lodged an appeal against conviction and sentence. On appeal the conviction was upheld but the sentence reduced. At the extradition hearing the District Judge ordered his discharge on the ground that the accusation warrant was defective as he had been convicted.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Further information provided by the issuing authority established a right to apply for reversal of the judgment and this ‘puts it completely beyond doubt in our view that the conviction and sentence were not final and enforceable’

The Hon Mrs Justice Swift DBE
[2010] EWHC 463 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Konecny v District Court In Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic SC 27-Feb-2019
. .
Approved – Ruzicka v District Court of Nitra, Slovakia Admn 19-May-2010
An accusation warrant issued by the Slovakian judicial authority was valid notwithstanding the fact that Mr Ruzicka had already been convicted and sentenced in Slovakia because he had appealed against the conviction and sentence in circumstances in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.402596

Office of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and others: HL 17 Nov 2005

The defendant resisted extradition to Brussels saying that the offence had been committed in part in England. He had absconded and been convicted. Application was made for his return to serve his sentence. The offences associated with organisation of illegal immigration, fell within the European framework list, but section 65(2)(a) was not satisfied.
Held: ‘the conduct’ in section 65 means the conduct complained of or relied on in the warrant, and since some of the conduct complained of or relied on in the warrant occurred in the United Kingdom, the condition in subsection (2)(a) is not satisfied and subsection (2) is accordingly inapplicable. However 65(3) should not be read to require that all the conduct complained of had to take place in the territory, and nor did that subsection disallow extradtion where acts had taken place in the UK. The 2003 Act may be properly descibed not as extradition but as a system for enforcing warrants.
Lord Hope of Craighead: ‘The system has, of course, been designed to protect rights. Trust in its ability to provide that protection will be earned by a careful observance of the procedures that have been laid down …
But the liberty of the subject is at stake here, and generosity must be balanced against the rights of the persons who are sought to be removed under these procedures. They are entitled to expect the courts to see that the procedures are adhered to according to the requirements laid down in the statute.’

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell
[2005] UKHL 67, [2006] 1 All ER 647, [2005] 3 WLR 1079, Times 18-Nov-2005, [2006] 2 AC 1
Bailii, House of Lords
Council Framework Decision on a European arrest warrant: COM/2001/0522 final – CNS 2001/0215, Extradition Act 2003 65(2)(a)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and Another Admn 20-Aug-2004
The prisoner had argued that the alleged offence underlying the application for his extradition to Belgium had been committed in part in England, and was therefore not extradictable. The prosecutor appealed.
Held: Part I of the 2003 Act was . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Stonehouse HL 1977
The defendant had been charged with attempting to obtain property by deception by fabricating his death by drowning in the sea off Miami in Florida. The final act alleged to constitute the offence occurred outside the jurisdiction of the English . .
Cited – Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 14-Mar-2002
. .
Cited – In re Nielsen HL 1984
The House considered the role of the metropolitan magistrate under section 9 and 10 of the 1870 Act in the context of an application for extradition under the treaty between Denmark and the United Kingdom. At section 9 hearings it had been the . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Clements v HM Advocate 1991
An offence charged was a contravention of the 1971 Act. Observing that the criminal enterprise with which the appellants were concerned was the whole network or chain of supply, right up to the end of the chain where the harmful effects were to be . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Doot HL 1973
The defendants were charged with conspiracy to import dangerous drugs into the United Kingdom. Their counsel submitted that they could not be tried in England since the conspiracy had been formed abroad.
Held: There could be no breach of any . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Her 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 . .
Cited – Bleta, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 9-Aug-2004
Extradition of the defendant was sought so as to serve a sentence of imprisonment.
Held: Use in the warrant of the actual words in the Act was not required. ‘Even if the actual words of the Act are not incorporated in the request, and even if . .

Cited by:
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Von 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 . .
Cited – McKinnon v USA and Another Admn 3-Apr-2007
The defendant appealed an order for his extradition. He had used his computer in London to access remotely defence and other government computers in the USA, and deleted files and copied others onto his own computer. He had been offered a deal if he . .
Cited – Dabas 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 . .
Cited – Hilali v Governor of HMP Whitemoor and others Admn 25-Apr-2007
The claimant had been in prison pending removal after his resistance to a European Extradition Warrant had failed. Subsequent developments in the case against him in Spain suggested that the case against him might now fail. He sought a writ of . .
Cited – Krzyzowski v Circuit Court In Gliwice, Poland Admn 23-Nov-2007
Extradition of the defendant to Poland was sought, the court saying he had fled his trial for burglaries in 1999. The defendant argued that his extradition would now be unfair.
Held: The judge was right to hold that his ruling of deliberate . .
Cited – Hilali, Re; Regina (Hilali) v Governor of Whitewall Prison and Another HL 30-Jan-2008
The applicant had been detained pending his extradition. He complained that that continued detention became unlawful after fundamantal changes in the case. The telephone intercepts which were the basis of the extradition had been ruled unlawful and . .
Cited – Pilecki v Circuit Court of Legnica, Poland HL 6-Feb-2008
The defendant appealed against an extradition order made under a European Arrest Warrant to ensure that he served a sentence of imprisonment in Poland. The warrant was in respect of several sentences, some of which were for more and some for less . .
Cited – Norris 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 . .
Cited – Caldarelli 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 . .
Cited – BH 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 . .
Cited – Zakrzewski 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 . .
Cited – Bucnys 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Konecny v District Court In Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic SC 27-Feb-2019
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Leading Case

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.235069

Bikar and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Governor of HM Prison Brixton: Admn 14 Feb 2003

The applicants, who had been convicted in absentia in the Czech Republic resisted their extradition under an accusation warrant on the ground that autrefois convict applied.
Held: As they had a right to request a new trial this was not a final judgment and accordingly they could be dealt with as persons accused

Henriques J
[2003] EWHC 372 (Admin)
Bailii
Extradition Act 1989
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Konecny v District Court In Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic SC 27-Feb-2019
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.184953

Sandi v Craiova Court, Romania: Admn 27 Nov 2009

Hickinbottom J observed that there is no reason why the same level of particularity of the circumstances of the offence is needed for a conviction warrant as for an accusation warrant. However, he went on to point out that, while the appropriate level of particularity to satisfy section 2(6)(b) will depend on the circumstances of each case, in a conviction case the requested person will need to have sufficient details of the circumstances of the underlying offences to enable him sensibly to understand what he has been convicted of and sentenced for and to enable him to consider whether any bars to extradition might apply.

Hickinbottom J
[2009] EWHC 3079 (Admin)
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003 2(6)(b)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Konecny v District Court In Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic SC 27-Feb-2019
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.381586

Caldarelli 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 not under Italian law either final or enforceable until the appeal process was concluded.
Held: The prosecutor’s appeal failed. The Act reflected a clear distinction between those who are convicted, and those who are only accused. While a national court may not interpret a national law contra legem, it must ‘do so as far as possible in the light of the wording and purpose of the Framework Decision in order to attain the result which it pursues and thus comply with article 34(2)(b) EU.
Lord Bingham said that the foreign judge had treated the appellant as an accused and not a convicted person. This seems strange to an English lawyer, familiar with a procedure by which a defendant sentenced to imprisonment at the end of a jury trial goes down the steps from the dock to the cells. But such is not the practice in Italy where the trial is indeed a continuing process, not yet finally completed in this case, and not an event. On the evidence the appellant falls within section 11(5) of the Act as a person accused of the commission of an extradition offence but not alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of it
Baroness Hale said: ‘

The foreign judge has treated the appellant as an accused and not a convicted person. This seems strange to an English lawyer, familiar with a procedure by which a defendant sentenced to imprisonment at the end of a jury trial goes down the steps from the dock to the cells. But such is not the practice in Italy where the trial is indeed a continuing process, not yet finally completed in this case, and not an event. On the evidence the appellant falls within section 11(5) of the Act as a person accused of the commission of an extradition offence but not alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of it.’

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell, Lord Mance
[2008] UKHL 51, Times 19-Aug-2008, [2008] All ER (D) 392, [2009] 1 All ER 1, [2008] 1 WLR 1724
Bailii, HL
Extradition Act 2003 26, Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 (2002/584/JHA)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Caldarelli v The Court of Naples Admn 12-Jul-2007
The court certified a point of law for the House of Lords as follows: ‘Where a fugitive has been convicted and sentenced in his absence in the requesting state, but the conviction and sentence are neither final nor enforceable, may his case be . .
Cited – In re Coppin 1866
The French sought to extradite Coppin who had been convicted by a court in Paris in his absence in a conviction ‘par contumace’. That conviction might be annulled if he surrendered to the court’s jurisdiction, when he would be tried again for the . .
Cited – In re Guisto (application for a writ of Habeas Corpus) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice) HL 3-Apr-2003
The applicant challenged an order for his extradition to the US. He had been convicted in his absence having absconded from bail.
Held: He had been arrested and held on the basis that he was a convicted person, but the procedure should have . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, ex parte Caborn-Waterfield QBD 1960
When an accused person is committed under the first paragraph of section 10 and surrendered to a foreign government he is surrendered for trial. Before that course is taken the magistrate has to be satisfied that a prima facie case is made out. When . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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. . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, ex parte Zezza HL 1983
In the context of an application for extradition, where the conviction was a ‘conviction for contumacy’ that phrase is not defined. It does not have an ordinary meaning in the English language. ‘Contumacy’ indicates insubordination or disobedience . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Office of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and others HL 17-Nov-2005
The defendant resisted extradition to Brussels saying that the offence had been committed in part in England. He had absconded and been convicted. Application was made for his return to serve his sentence. The offences associated with organisation . .
Cited – Migliorelli v Government of Italy QBD 28-Jul-2000
The Government of Italy sought the return of a fugitive who had been tried and convicted in his absence. The issue was whether the warrant should have been issued against the fugitive as a convicted person and not, as it had, as an accused person. . .
Cited – La Torre v The Lord Advocate and Another HCJ 8-Nov-2006
The Lord Advocate had conceded that devolution minutes were competent in proceedings under the 2003 Act. . .
Cited – La Torre v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 14-Jul-2006
The applicant resisted his extradition to Italy, saying that the provisions of Part 2 of the 2003 Act were engaged because the case started life before Italy ratified the Framework Decision and so adopted the EAW system. La Torre had been found . .
Cited – Criminal 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 . .
Cited – Dabas 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 . .

Cited by:
Cited – Konecny v District Court In Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic SC 27-Feb-2019
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, European

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.271272

Nemeth and Others v Hungarian Judicial Authorities: Admn 9 Dec 2021

A series of extradition cases involving accusation EAWs, where extraditions are being sought to Hungary. The cases relate to what the Hungarian prosecutors say is a very serious telephone scam which took place in Hungary but run from the United Kingdom, whereby some 220 elderly victims (between the ages of 70 and 96) at the hands of some 22 perpetrators were scammed into handing over large sums of money which in aggregate amounted to the equivalent of more than pounds 500,000.

Mr Justice Fordham
[2021] EWHC 3366 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 06 January 2022; Ref: scu.670473