Category: Extradition

Wheeler v The Office of The Prime Minister The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 14 Nov 2014

Application for permission to bring a claim for judicial review of a proposed decision by Her Majesty’s Government to give notice pursuant to Article 10(5) of Protocol 36 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘The TFEU’) that the United Kingdom wishes to participate in the Council Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant (‘EAW’).

Sir Brian Leveson P QBD, Jay, Lewis JJ
[2014] EWHC 3815 (Admin)
Bailii

Extradition, European

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538783

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 particular character and not of assistance to the applicant. The case did not involve a single applicant, and the case did not involve domestic law (though the New Zealand law was not dissimilar). Although the case was exceptional in the delay, there is no absolute rule to set any time limit, and the appeal failed. The approach in New Zealand appeared similar to our own. A stay on the ground of delay in our domestic courts is only properly granted when ‘there really is evidence of prejudice to the extent that a fair trial could not be held’.

The Right Honourable Lord Justice Simon Brown The Honourable Mr Justice Royce
[2003] EWHC 2668 (Admin), Times 27-Nov-2003, [2004] 1 WLR 1979, [2004] 1 All ER 678
Bailii
Extradition Act 1989 11(9)
England and Wales
Citing:
Distinguished – Regina v B CACD 2003
The court allowed an appeal against conviction on charges of sex abuse where the underlying offences had taken place many years before. ‘In this case it has to be recognised that because of the delay that occurred, in our judgment the appellant was . .
Cited – Regina v Dutton CACD 1994
The case involved an allegation of sex abuse committed against a young boy who then made no complaint until he was 29, twenty years after the first offence and 14 years after the last offence alleged against the defendant. There was no apparent . .

Cited by:
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.187789

Florea v The Judicial Authority Carei Courthouse, Satu Mare County, Romania: Admn 30 Jul 2014

The claimant challenged his proposed extradition to Romania saying that prison overcrowding there would breach his human rights.

Rafferty LJ, Blake J
[2014] EWHC 2528 (Admin), [2014] WLR(D) 356,
Bailii, WLRD
Extradition Act 2003 21, European Convention on Human Rights 3

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.535531

The Judicial Authority in Sweden v Assange: 24 Feb 2011

(City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court – Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court) The authority sought the extradition of the defendant to Sweden to face prosecution on allegations of sexual assaults. The defendant argued that the Act allowed extradition only for prosecution, and that in this case questioning only was sought and an extradition would be an abuse.
Held: There was no ambiguity in the warrant. The defendant was required for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution. The Swedish prosecution process allowed a stage before a decision was made as to the exact form of prosecution: ‘It is a question of fact in each case whether the person passes the threshold of being an ‘accused’ person who is wanted for prosecution. It is accepted by all parties in this case that it is wrong to approach this question solely from the perspective of English criminal procedure. In our jurisdiction prosecution will normally be started by the laying of an information, or a decision to charge. In many, perhaps most, other European countries the position is different.’ That being the case, the issue was as to the validity of the warrant. It was valid. It would not be appropriate to interrogate such a defendant otherwise than face to face, and the request for the return was proper.
The procedure for hearing such cases in Sweden behind closed doors was not a breach of the defendant’s human rights.

Howard Riddle, Senior District Judge
[2011] EW Misc 5 (MC)
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003
England and Wales
Cited by:
At Magistrates Court – 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.
At Magistrates Court – Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority Admn 2-Nov-2011
The defendant argued that he should not be extradited under a European Arest warrant to Sweden to face allegations of serious sexual assaults. He argued that the prosecutor requesting the extradition was not a judicial authority, that some offences . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.430056

United States of America v Assange: Misc 4 Jan 2021

Westminster Magistrates Court – The defendant resisted a request for extradition to the USA.
Held: Extradition was refused on the sole basis that the defendant was already in a weak and susceptible mental health condition, and the indications of the conditions in which he would be held in the USA pending trial and if imprisoned after a conviction, would put his health further at risk.

District Judge (Magistrates’ Court) Vanessa Baraitser
[2021] EW Misc 1 (MagC), [2020] EW Misc 29 (MagC)
Bailii, Judiciary, Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – 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.
See Also – Assange, An Application By (Cancel An Arrest Warrant : Ruling No 2) Misc 11-Feb-2018
(Westminster Magistrates Court) . .

Cited by:
See Also – United States of America v Assange Admn 11-Aug-2021
Appeal from refusal of extradition order on grounds of defendant’s mental health.
Held: Leave granted. . .
See Also – United States of America v Assange Admn 10-Dec-2021
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 – United States of America v Assange Admn 10-Dec-2021
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: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.657047

Turner v Government of The USA: Admn 28 Aug 2012

The defendant challenged the request to extradite her, because of the passage of time, and because of her threatened suicide if extradited.

Aikens LJ, Globe J
[2012] EWHC 2426 (Admin)
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – United States of America v Assange Admn 10-Dec-2021
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: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.463796

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.
Held: The appeal failed (Lord Mance dissenting). The term ‘judicial authority’ had a range of meanings. Under previous law a request might have been made, as here, by a prosecutor. Though the Framework decision had altered as it progressed through the legislative process, the original French phrase of the adopted document clearly included a prosecutorial authority. Pepper v Hart could not be used to allow the court to look to discussions prior to enactment to assist in interpretation of the Act.
Lord Mance said that the presumption that Parliament intends to give effect to international obligations is always subject to the will of Parliament as expressed in the language of the statute. In this case, the correct interpretation of ‘judicial authority’ in the Framework Decision, a question of EU law, was far from certain. If Parliament wanteded to restrict the power to issue EAWs to judges or courts, that would not have required a deliberate intention to legislate inconsistently with the Framework Decision. As the words in the statute were ambiguous, it was appropriate to have regard to ministerial statements, and those statements showed that repeated assurances were given that an issuing judicial authority would have to be a court, judge or magistrate.
Lord Phillips said that: ‘under the scheme of the Framework Decision the safeguard against the inappropriate issue of an EAW lies in the process antecedent to the issue of the EAW.’

Lord Phillips, President, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Dyson
[2012] UKSC 22, UKSC 2011/0264, [2012] 2 AC 471, [2012] 3 WLR 1, [2012] 4 All ER 1249, [2013] 1 CMLR 4, [2012] 2 WLR 1275
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
Extradition Act 2003, Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States of the European Union 2002/584/JHA
England and Wales
Citing:
At Magistrates Court – The Judicial Authority in Sweden v Assange 24-Feb-2011
(City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court – Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court) The authority sought the extradition of the defendant to Sweden to face prosecution on allegations of sexual assaults. The defendant argued that the Act allowed . .
Appeal from – Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority Admn 2-Nov-2011
The defendant argued that he should not be extradited under a European Arest warrant to Sweden to face allegations of serious sexual assaults. He argued that the prosecutor requesting the extradition was not a judicial authority, that some offences . .
Cited – Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
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 – Schiesser v Switzerland ECHR 4-Dec-1979
. .
Cited – Piaggio (Germany) 14-Feb-2007
Court of Cassation Sez 6 (Italy). The appellant challenged the issue by the Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office of a European Arrest Warrant on the ground that it should have been issued and signed by a judge.
Held: The argument failed: ‘The . .
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 – Medvedyev And Others v France ECHR 29-Mar-2010
(Grand Chamber) A Cambodian vessel, The Winner, trafficked drugs on the high seas (Cape Verde). It was detected and boarded by the French authorities, detaining the crew on board and took them on the vessel to France for trial. France was, but . .
Cited – Dhar v National Office of The Public Prosecution Service The Netherlands Admn 28-Mar-2012
King J discussed the issuing of certificates in extradition requests: ‘True it is that the certificate must be certifying that the issuing authority has been designated by the law of the requesting state as the competent judicial authority for the . .

Cited by:
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 . .
See Also – David and Others, Re Sureties Assange Misc 3-Oct-2012
Sureties must fulfil duty to ensure surrender
(Westminster Magistrates Court) The parties had given surety for a Julian Assange who had been granted bail. On his failure to surrender to bail, the recognizances were declared forfeit. The parties now appealed. They had not attended the hearing at . .
Cited – French v Public Prosecutor of The Central Department of Investigation and Prosecution In Lisbon Portugal PC 13-Jun-2013
(Gibraltar) Mr French appealed against refusal of his request to have set aside an order for his extradition under a European Arrest Warrant. He argued that (in general) the court had failed to deal with the matter within the mandatory time limits. . .
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 – The United States of America v Nolan SC 21-Oct-2015
Mrs Nolan had been employed at a US airbase. When it closed, and she was made redundant, she complained that the appellant had not consulted properly on the redundancies. The US denied that it had responsibility to consult, and now appealed.
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 . .
See Also – Assange, An Application By (Cancel An Arrest Warrant : Ruling No 1) Misc 6-Feb-2018
(Westminster Magistrates Court) Application on behalf of Julian Assange to have withdrawn an arrest warrant issued when Mr Assange did not surrender for extradition to Sweden. . .
See Also – Assange, An Application By (Cancel An Arrest Warrant : Ruling No 2) Misc 11-Feb-2018
(Westminster Magistrates Court) . .
See Also – United States of America v Assange Misc 4-Jan-2021
Westminster Magistrates Court – The defendant resisted a request for extradition to the USA.
Held: Extradition was refused on the sole basis that the defendant was already in a weak and susceptible mental health condition, and the indications . .
See Also – United States of America v Assange Admn 11-Aug-2021
Appeal from refusal of extradition order on grounds of defendant’s mental health.
Held: Leave granted. . .
See Also – United States of America v Assange Admn 10-Dec-2021
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, European

Leading Case

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.459832

Assange, An Application By (Cancel An Arrest Warrant : Ruling No 2): Misc 11 Feb 2018

(Westminster Magistrates Court)

[2018] EW Misc B3 (MagC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – 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 by:
See Also – United States of America v Assange Misc 4-Jan-2021
Westminster Magistrates Court – The defendant resisted a request for extradition to the USA.
Held: Extradition was refused on the sole basis that the defendant was already in a weak and susceptible mental health condition, and the indications . .
See Also – United States of America v Assange Admn 11-Aug-2021
Appeal from refusal of extradition order on grounds of defendant’s mental health.
Held: Leave granted. . .
See Also – United States of America v Assange Admn 10-Dec-2021
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: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.633111

Szombathely City Court and others v Fenyvesi and Another: Admn 19 Feb 2009

The court considered its power to admit additional evidence on an extradition appeal. A court had rejected an extradition request saying that it was not sure that the defendants, as Roma citizens would receive a fair trial. The requesting authorities sought to admit additional evidence as to the fairness of the trial system.
Held: There was no sufficient reason why the evidence should not have been brought earlier.
The Administrative court will not readily admit fresh evidence which should have been adduced before the lower court and which is tendered to try to repair holes which should have been plugged before that court.

Sir Anthony M P, Silber J
[2009] EWHC 231 (Admin), [2009] 4 All ER 324
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003 29(4)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – United States of America v Assange Admn 10-Dec-2021
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, Human Rights

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.295119

United States of America v Assange: Admn 11 Aug 2021

Appeal from refusal of extradition order on grounds of defendant’s mental health.
Held: Leave granted.

[2021] EWHC 2528 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – 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.
See Also – Assange, An Application By (Cancel An Arrest Warrant : Ruling No 2) Misc 11-Feb-2018
(Westminster Magistrates Court) . .
See Also – United States of America v Assange Misc 4-Jan-2021
Westminster Magistrates Court – The defendant resisted a request for extradition to the USA.
Held: Extradition was refused on the sole basis that the defendant was already in a weak and susceptible mental health condition, and the indications . .

Cited by:
See Also – United States of America v Assange Admn 10-Dec-2021
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: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.668443

The Government of India v Dhir and Another: Admn 6 Feb 2020

The court heard a Part 2 case in which the issues related to article 3 of the Convention. The court said: ‘The court may consider undertakings or assurances at various stages of the proceedings, including on appeal, and the court may consider a later assurance even if an earlier undertaking was held to be defective: see Dzgoev v Russia [2017] EWHC 735 at paragraph 68 and 87 and Giese v USA (no 4) . . Where a real risk of inhuman and degrading treatment is established, it is not appropriate to discharge the requested person but to enable the requesting state ‘to satisfy the court that the risk can be discounted’ by providing assurances, see Georgiev v Bulgaria [2018] EWHC 359 (Admin) at paragraph 8(ix). If such an assurance cannot be provided within a reasonable time it may then be necessary to order the discharge of the requested person, see . . India v Chawla at paragraph 47.’

Lord Justice Dingemans,
Mr Justice Spencer
[2020] EWHC 200 (Admin)
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – United States of America v Assange Admn 10-Dec-2021
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, Human Rights

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.648141

Ahmad and Another v United States of America: Admn 30 Nov 2006

The court addressed a submission to the effect that there was a substantial risk that the USA would not honour assurances given in Diplomatic Notes.
Held: Laws LJ, referred to the fundamental assumption that a requesting state is acting in good faith, subject to the possibility of that assumption being displaced by evidence. He went on to say that the USA: ‘ is a state with which the United Kingdom has entered into five substantial treaties on extradition over a period of more than 150 years. Over this continued and uninterrupted history of extradition relations there is no instance of any assurance given by the United States, as the requesting state in an extradition case, having been dishonoured.’

Lord Justice Laws,
Mr Justice Walker
[2007] HRLR 8, [2007] ACD 54, [2007] UKHRR 525, [2006] EWHC 2927 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – United States of America v Assange Admn 10-Dec-2021
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: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.670452

India, The Government of v Ashley: Admn 10 Oct 2014

Lord Justice Elias,
Mr Justice Hickinbottom
[2014] EWHC 3505 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – United States of America v Assange Admn 10-Dec-2021
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: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.670451

Bacau District Court Romania v Iancu: Admn 29 Apr 2021

Further information and a related assurance had been submitted outside a time limit and after the conclusion of the hearing. The District Judge refused to admit it when to do so would result in a further hearing and in further delay to proceedings.
Held: Chamberlain J said: ‘it is inherent in the concept of a time limit that failure to comply with it may have consequences’.

Mr Justice Chamberlain
[2021] EWHC 1107 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – United States of America v Assange Admn 10-Dec-2021
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: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.662315

Cuneyit Akaroglu v The Government of Romania; Regina (Akaroglu) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: QBD 1 Mar 2007

The defendant claimed that the Home Secretary had worngfully issued a certificate under section 70 to support his extradition.
Held: On the facts the defendant’s claim failed, but the court considered that in the case of a wrongfully issued certficate, the proper remedy was by way of judicial review.

Mr Justice Clarke Lord Justice Scott Baker
[2007] EWHC 367 (QB), Times 09-Mar-2007
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003 103
England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 07 December 2021; Ref: scu.249326

Kapri v Her Majesty’s Advocate, Re In The Application By (Albania): HCJ 17 Jun 2014

[2014] ScotHC HCJAC – 63
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003
Citing:
See Also – Kapri v The Lord Advocate for and On Behalf of The Court of First Instance Judicial District of Elbasan, Albania HCJ 2-Feb-2012
The applicant objected to his proposed extradition to Albania, saying that he would not receive a fair trial. An examination of the reports disclosed that counsel for the Lord Advocate’s analysis of them was correct. None of the examples of the . .
See Also – Kapri v The Lord Advocate Representing The Government of The Republic of Albania HCJ 1-Jun-2012
. .
See Also – Kapri v The Lord Advocate (Representing The Government of The Republic of Albania) SC 10-Jul-2013
The Court was asked whether it would be compatible with the appellant’s Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 for the appellant, who is an Albanian national, to be extradited to Albania. On 7 April 2001, while he was in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Extradition

Updated: 05 December 2021; Ref: scu.526756

Juszka v District Court Lublin (Poland): Admn 22 Mar 2016

The court was asked whether the Judge had fallen into error in assessing the Article 8 rights of the appellant and his family pursuant to section 21 of the 2003 Act and/or in applying the wrong legal test as she undertook that assessment.

Holroyde J
[2016] EWHC 753 (Admin)
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003 21, European Convention of Human Rights 8
England and Wales

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.562126

Newbold v The Commissioner of Police: PC 16 Apr 2014

Bahamas – The appellants are the subject of extradition requests by the United States of America on suspicion of having committed drug trafficking offences. Extradition proceedings were commenced against them by the United States and the Attorney General (‘the respondents’) as long ago as nine years. During such proceedings before Magistrate Mrs Carolita Bethell, the respondents sought to adduce evidence obtained by the interception by the Bahamian police of the appellants’ telephone conversations. The present appeal concerns the legitimacy and, now, constitutionality of their so doing.

Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge
[2014] UKPC 12
Bailii
Commonwealth

Extradition, Police, Constitutional

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.525607

Kapri v Her Majesty’s Advocate (For The Republic of Albania): HCJ 25 Apr 2014

[2014] ScotHC HCJAC – 33
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003
Citing:
See Also – Kapri v The Lord Advocate for and On Behalf of The Court of First Instance Judicial District of Elbasan, Albania HCJ 2-Feb-2012
The applicant objected to his proposed extradition to Albania, saying that he would not receive a fair trial. An examination of the reports disclosed that counsel for the Lord Advocate’s analysis of them was correct. None of the examples of the . .
See Also – Kapri v The Lord Advocate Representing The Government of The Republic of Albania HCJ 1-Jun-2012
. .
See Also – Kapri v The Lord Advocate (Representing The Government of The Republic of Albania) SC 10-Jul-2013
The Court was asked whether it would be compatible with the appellant’s Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 for the appellant, who is an Albanian national, to be extradited to Albania. On 7 April 2001, while he was in . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Scotland, Extradition

Updated: 03 December 2021; Ref: scu.524625

Brazuks and Others v Prosecutor General’s Office, Republic of Latvia: Admn 9 Apr 2014

Three extraditees challenged their return to Latvia. The court was asked whether the state of the Latvian prison estate is such as to produce a real risk that there will be a breach of Article 3 of the ECHR if returns are directed.

Moses LJ, Collins J
[2014] EWHC 1021 (Admin)
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003 26
England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523636

VB and Others v Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Others: Admn 27 Mar 2014

The applicants challenged their extradition to Rwanda to stand trial for matters which would be an offence under the laws of both countries. Application was made for evidence to be given in secret and without disclosure to the requesting state.
Held: The Court discharged the appellants on the ground that the appellants faced a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice if returned to Rwanda to stand trial.

Moses LJ, Mitting J
[2014] EWHC 889 (Admin)
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – VB and Others v Westminster Magistrates SC 5-Nov-2014
Extraditions to follow normal open justice rules
Application was made by Rwanda for the extradition of four individuals to face crimes said to have been committed during their civil war. Witnesses were prepared to give evidence but only in private and not being seen by the representatives of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523304

Government of The Republic of South Africa v Dewani: Admn 31 Jan 2014

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd LCJ, Ouseley, Blake JJ
[2014] EWHC 153 (Admin), [2014] WLR(D) 41,
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Government of South Africa v Dewani Admn 10-Dec-2010
Appeal against grant of bail to extradition subject. . .
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 – 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 . .
See Also – Republic of South Africa v Dewani Admn 30-Mar-2012
The appellant challenged the decision by the magistrate to allow his extradition to South Africa to face charges of the murder of his wife. . .
See Also – Republic of South Africa v Dewani Misc 24-Jul-2013
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.520859

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 court was asked whether the requests are open to challenge on the basis that (i) they were not the product of a ‘judicial decision’ by a ‘judicial authority’ within the terms of the Framework Decision and/or of Part 1 of the United Kingdom Extradition Act 2003, and (ii) the ministries making them did not have the function of issuing domestic arrest warrants and were incorrectly certified by SOCA under section 2(7) of the 2003 Act. If a challenge is open on either or both of these bases, the third question is (iii) whether the challenge is on the evidence well-founded in the case of either or both of the Ministries. The appellants said that the relevant ministries of justice were not properly ‘judicial authority’.
Held: The EAWs issued for Bucnys and Lavrov were effective, but not that for Sakalis.
The framework decision did not give member states carte blance to define ‘judicial authority’ as it liked. The concept was derived for the Union Treaty which distinguished between ‘ministries’ and ‘judicial authorities’. The use of this defintion served to bring objectivity, enhancing confidence in the system.
Where an EAW was issued to obtain the surrender of a convicted person by a ministry at the request of or with the endorsement of a sentencing court or other judicial authority responsible for execution of the sentence, then any discretion not to issue does not undermine the request.

Lord Mance, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2014] 1 AC 480, [2013] UKSC 71, [2013] WLR(D) 446, [2013] 3 WLR 1485, [2014] 2 All ER 235, UKSC 2012/0248
Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Extradition Act 2003, Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Goatley v Her Majesty’s Advocate and Another HCJ 12-Jul-2006
. .
Cited – Harmatos v King’s Prosecutor In Dendermond, Belgium Admn 24-May-2011
. .
Cited – Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart HL 26-Nov-1992
Reference to Parliamentary Papers behind Statute
The inspector sought to tax the benefits in kind received by teachers at a private school in having their children educated at the school for free. Having agreed this was a taxable emolument, it was argued as to whether the taxable benefit was the . .
Cited – France v Commission ECJ 9-Aug-1994
ECJ 1. In order for an action to be admissible under the first paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty, the contested act must be an act of an institution which produces legal effects. Since it is apparent from . .
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 – Eman and Sevinger (European Citizenship) ECJ 12-Sep-2006
ECJ (Opinion) European Parliament – Elections – Right to vote – Requirements of residence in the Netherlands for Netherlands citizens of Aruba – Citizenship of the Union. . .
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 – Kozlowski (Police And Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters) ECJ 17-Jul-2008
ECJ Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States – Article 4(6) – Ground for optional . .
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 – Mantello (Police And Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters) ECJ 7-Sep-2010
ECJ Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – European Arrest Warrant – Reason for mandatory non-execution – Principle ne bis in idem principle – Fundamental right – when the . .
Cited – Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority Admn 2-Nov-2011
The defendant argued that he should not be extradited under a European Arest warrant to Sweden to face allegations of serious sexual assaults. He argued that the prosecutor requesting the extradition was not a judicial authority, that some offences . .
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.
Appeal from – Ministry of Justice, Lithuania v Bucnys Admn 12-Oct-2012
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 26 November 2021; Ref: scu.518305

Republic of South Africa v Dewani: Misc 24 Jul 2013

[2013] EW Misc 8 (MC)
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003
Citing:
See Also – Government of South Africa v Dewani Admn 10-Dec-2010
Appeal against grant of bail to extradition subject. . .
See Also – Republic of South Africa v Dewani Admn 30-Mar-2012
The appellant challenged the decision by the magistrate to allow his extradition to South Africa to face charges of the murder of his wife. . .

Cited by:
See Also – Government of The Republic of South Africa v Dewani Admn 31-Jan-2014
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513794

KAS v The United Kingdom (Dec): ECHR 4 Jun 2013

Article 37-1
Striking out applications
Careful examination of applicant’s case by domestic courts: struck out
Facts – The applicant, a mother of six children, and her former husband were under investigation by the United Kingdom and the United States authorities for the sale of chemicals used for the manufacture of illegal drugs. In 2006 an indictment was filed against them in the US, which requested their extradition. Having carefully examined the circumstances of the case and the best interests of the child, the UK courts concluded that the applicant’s extradition would not violate her rights under Article 8. The applicant then lodged an application with the European Court, which granted an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court preventing her extradition while the proceedings before the Court were pending. The applicant subsequently informed the Court that she had reached a plea agreement with the US authorities and she wished to withdraw her application to the Court.
Law – Article 37-1: Before striking out a case, the Court had to consider whether there were any circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which would require the continued examination of the case, including in cases where the applicant wished to withdraw his or her application. Such circumstances have been held to exist when the continued examination of an application contributed to elucidating, safeguarding and developing the standards of protection under the Convention or when there was a new issue of concern or paucity of case-law on a particular subject. However, the Court considered that it should be slow to find that such circumstances existed where a case had been the subject of careful and detailed examination by the domestic courts. The applicant’s case had been examined at three levels of jurisdiction, all of which had given careful consideration not just to her case, but to the general approach to be taken to Article 8 in extradition cases. Therefore, notwithstanding the general importance of the issue initially presented to it, the Court was satisfied that there were no circumstances which would justify its continued examination of the applicant’s case.
Conclusion: struck out of the list (majority).

38844/12 – Legal Summary, [2013] ECHR 734
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 37-1

Human Rights, Extradition

Updated: 17 November 2021; Ref: scu.513583

Polomski v Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Admn 4 Jul 2013

The court considered the new Tariff expired removal scheme, for foreign national prisoners serving an indeterminate sentence, either imprisonment for life or imprisonment for public protection, allowing those prisoners who are confirmed by the Home Office to be liable to removal from the United Kingdom to be removed from the country from the date their tariff expires, without reference to the Parole Board.

Cranston J
[2013] EWHC 1893 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 15 November 2021; Ref: scu.512163