Category: Extradition

Regina v Swindon Magistrates’ Court; Swindon Crown Court; Chief Constable of Wiltshire Police ex parte Nangle, Regina v Staines Magistrates’ Court; Metropolitan Police Commissioner ex parte Westfallen, Regina v Staines: Admn 2 Dec 1997

The claimants challenged decisions of the magistrates in cases where they had refused to ask how the claimants had been brought within the jurisdiction. They said that they had been brought here under wrongful disguised extraditions.

[1997] EWHC Admin 1076
England and Wales

Magistrates, Extradition

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.138021

Regina v In the Matter of an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum Governor of HM Prison Brixton, ex parte Barone: Admn 7 Nov 1997

The defendant had been convicted in his absence by a court in Turin and in respect of whom there was uncontradicted evidence before their lordships that if he were returned to that jurisdiction he would, under the relevant Italian procedures, be wholly unable to avail himself of any right of appeal.
Held: A fugitive offender who has been convicted in absentia by a requesting state, shall not be returned to such state if it appears to the Secretary of State that it would not be in the interest of justice to return him.

Lord Justice Kennedy
[1997] EWHC Admin 988
Extradition Act 1989 6(2)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Colozza v Italy ECHR 12-Feb-1985
The defendant complained that he had been tried and convicted in his absence.
Held: The right to a fair trial had been breached: ‘the object and purpose of [article 6] taken as a whole show that a person ‘charged with a criminal offence’ is . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Masterman Admn 10-Feb-1998
The defendant had been arrested as a fugitive offender having been sentenced for rape in the US. The defendant argued that it would be ‘unjust or oppressive to return him’. The defendant argued that the case was an injustice but that if returned he . .
Cited – Mariotti v Government of Italy and others Admn 2-Dec-2005
The extraditee had been convicted in his absence in Italy having fled to avoid the trial. He complained that the trial process had been unfair and the evidence against him weak.
Held: The court’s duty was not to investigate the evidential . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.137933

Minister for Justice and Equality v Lanigan: ECJ 16 Jul 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 6 – Right to liberty and security – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European arrest warrant – Obligation to execute the European arrest warrant – Article 12 – Keeping the requested person in detention – Article 15 – Surrender decision – Article 17 – Time-limits and detailed procedure for the decision on execution – Consequences of a failure to observe the time-limits

V. Skouris, P
C-237/15, [2015] EUECJ C-237/15, [2015] WLR(D) 311, ECLI:EU:C:2015:474
Bailii, WLRD
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 6, Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA

European, Human Rights, Extradition

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.550989

Gallardo Sanchez v Italy: ECHR 24 Mar 2015

ECHR Article 5-1-f
Extradition
Undue delays in extraditing applicant to stand trial in requesting State: violation
Facts – The applicant is a Venezuelan national. In April 2005, having been charged with arson by the Greek authorities, he was placed in detention pending extradition by the Italian police pursuant to an arrest warrant issued under the European Convention on Extradition. He was extradited to Greece in October 2006.
The applicant complained before the European Court of the length of his detention pending extradition.
Law – Article 5 – 1 (f): The applicant’s detention pending extradition had been in conformity with domestic law and had been justified on grounds of the State’s duty to comply with its international commitments and the existence of a risk that the applicant might abscond.
However, the applicant had been placed in detention pending extradition in order to enable the Greek authorities to prosecute him. In that connection it was necessary to distinguish between two forms of extradition in order to specify the level of diligence required for each. These were extradition for the purposes of enforcing a sentence and extradition enabling the requesting State to try the person concerned. In the latter case, as criminal proceedings were still pending the person subject to extradition was to be presumed innocent; furthermore, at that stage their ability to exercise their defence rights in the criminal proceedings for the purposes of proving their innocence was considerably limited, or even non-existent; lastly, the authorities of the requested State were debarred from undertaking any examination of the merits of the case. For all those reasons, the protection of the rights of the person concerned and the proper functioning of the extradition proceedings, including the duty to prosecute the individual concerned within a reasonable time, required the requested State to act with special diligence.
In the present case the detention pending extradition had lasted approximately one year and six months and considerable delays attributable to the Italian authorities had occurred at the different stages of the extradition proceedings, though the case had not been particularly complex. Accordingly, having regard to the nature of the extradition proceedings, instituted for the purpose of prosecuting the applicant in a third State, and the unjustified nature of the delays by the Italian courts, the applicant’s detention had not been ‘lawful’ within the meaning of Article 5 – 1 (f) of the Convention.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: no claim made in respect of damage.

11620/07 – Legal Summary, [2015] ECHR 600
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 5-1-f

Human Rights, Extradition

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.549419

Harkins v The United Kingdom: ECHR 31 Mar 2015

71537/14 – Communicated Case, [2015] ECHR 476
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Citing:
See Also – Harkins v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-2017
. .
See Also – Harkins v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Jan-2017
Press release (extradition order to face trial for first-degree murder in the United States of America (USA)) . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Extradition

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546464

H v United States of America: Admn 28 Apr 2015

Applcation as to a requirement to balance the Art. 8 rights of the Appellant (‘H’) and her daughter (‘M’) on the one hand, with the public interest in extradition and the need for the United Kingdom to honour its international treaty obligations on the other.

Gross LJ, Collins J
[2015] EWHC 1066 (Admin)
Bailii

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.546157

MS, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 22 Apr 2015

Three claims for judicial review of decisions of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, rejecting the claim of each Claimant that returning each of them to Italy would result in a real risk that each of them would be exposed to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR and certifying the claim as clearly unfounded within the meaning of paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 3 to the 2004 Act.

[2015] EWHC 1095 (Admin)
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights, Immigration and Asylum (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004
England and Wales

Human Rights, Extradition

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545873

Government of Turkey v Tanis: Admn 21 Jun 2021

Lord Justice Dingemans,
Mr Justice Johnson
[2021] EWHC 1675 (Admin)
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003 81(b)
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.663445

Regional Court In Tarnow Poland v Wojciechowski: Admn 4 Nov 2014

[2014] EWHC 4162 (Admin)
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003 2(6)(c)
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: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542566

Enander v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another: Admn 16 Nov 2005

The claimant sought habeas corpus. The Swedish authorities had issued a European Arrest Warrant for his extradition. He submitted that the authority issuing the warrant in Sweden did not amount to a ‘judicial authority’ because it would not be so recognised within the UK.
Held: The request failed: ‘in all the circumstances, the expression ‘judicial authority’ in section 2(2) must be read against the background of the Framework Decision and what it was intended to put in place. The Framework Decision leaves to the individual member state the right to designate its own judicial authority . . it is left to the member states to use their own discretion as to what will or will not be designated the appropriate judicial authority.’

Gage LJ, Openshaw J
[2005] EWHC 3036 (Admin), [2006] 1 CMLR 37
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003 2(2) 2(5)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court ex parte Van der Holst 1986
. .

Cited by:
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539973

Pham v The United States of America: Admn 12 Dec 2014

The defendant appealed against an order for his extradition to the USA to face extra-territorial terrorist charges.
Held: The court dismissed the appeal: ‘whether the appellant is a British citizen or not makes no difference to his relevant Article 6 rights. Our reasons are as follows: the ECtHR has stated many times that a decision of a national court on extradition or expulsion of an alien of that state does not constitute a ‘determination’ of either a ‘civil right’ or a ‘criminal charge’ for the purposes of Article 6(1) of the ECHR. However, in Halligen, the Supreme Court held that a British citizen enjoyed a ‘civil right’ to enter, remain in and leave the UK as he wished, subject to any parliamentary control by legislation. Thus, any proceedings in a UK court in which the extradition of a British citizen was sought was one which would ‘determine’ that ‘civil right’. Accordingly, that process had to be consistent with Article 6. In contrast to Halligen, the present case is not concerned with the appellant’s Article 6 rights in relation to any court proceedings in the UK; it is concerned with whether his extradition would lead to a breach of his Article 6 rights in any trial that would take place in the USA. The test, ie. whether there would be a ‘flagrant breach’ of those rights in relation to the US trial proceedings, is the same whether the appellant is a British citizen or not. He would have no better rights if he were declared to be a British citizen. Moreover, the appellant’s ability to rely on his other Convention rights, in particular those under Article 3, as a means of resisting extradition, is evidently the same whether or not he is a British citizen.’

Aitkens LJ, Simon J
[2014] EWHC 4167 (Admin)
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003 103(1), European Convention on Human Rights 6
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – B2 v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Deportation – Preliminary Issue – Allowed) SIAC 26-Jul-2012
The appellant was vietnamese by birth, but had later been granted British Citizenship. The Secretary of State came to seek to deprive him of that citizenship on conducive grounds for reasons of national security, and his deportation to Vietnam. The . .
See Also – B2 v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 24-May-2013
Appeal from the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in which the issue was whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department was entitled to deprive a British Citizen originating from Vietnam of British nationality following his alleged . .

Cited by:
Appeal From – Pham v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-Mar-2015
The court was asked: ‘whether the Secretary of State was precluded under the British Nationality Act 1981 from making an order depriving the appellant of British citizenship because to do so would render him stateless. This turns on whether (within . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539844