Category: Extradition

Regina v Brixton Prison Governor, Ex Parte Rush: QBD 1969

The court refused to return the applicant to Canada on a charge of conspiracy to defraud on the ground that the persons defrauded were all situated in the United States. The evidence did not disclose that the substantive crime contemplated by the alleged conspiracy to defraud was completed within Canada.
[1969] 1 WLR 165
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Treacy v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1970
Blackmail was alleged under section 21 of the 1968 Act, the letter making the unwarranted demand with menaces having been posted from England to an intended victim in Germany.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. To allow an English court to have . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 September 2021; Ref: scu.196567

Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Gardner: QBD 1968

A person was not eligible for surrender to New Zealand, the requesting country, because the offences with which he was charged in New Zealand involved the obtaining of property by knowingly false representations as to future conduct. English criminal law did not proscribe the use of knowingly false representations as to future conduct in order to obtain property, but only the use of knowingly false representations as to present fact, the required double criminality did not exist.
Lord Parker CJ, Edmund Davies LJ and Widgery J
[1968] 2 QB 399
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 September 2021; Ref: scu.182205

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 a convicted person is committed under the second paragraph of section 10 and surrendered to a foreign government he is surrendered to serve his sentence, in which case all that is necessary in the magistrates’ court is to prove his conviction. The applicant had been wrongly treated as an accused person when he should, having regard to the final nature of the French judgment ultimately passed upon him, have been treated as a convicted person.
Salmon J
[1960] 2 QB 498
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 – Caborn-Waterfield v Gold and Others QBD 11-Mar-2013
The defendants requested a preliminary ruling that the words complained of in the claimant’s action were not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning.
Held: Some of the pleaded meanings were not supported, but others were clearly defamatory, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 September 2021; Ref: scu.180424

Regina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Launder: HL 13 Mar 1997

The question arose as to whether or not the decision of the Secretary of State to extradite the applicant to Hong Kong would have amounted to a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Although the Convention was not at that time in force in the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State had concluded that his decision to extradite would not amount to a breach of the applicant’s human rights.
Held: ‘it is necessary first to mention the situation at that time and then to examine the situation at the present stage. Although we are concerned primarily with the reasonableness of the decisions at the time when they were taken we cannot ignore these developments. We are dealing in this case with concerns which have been expressed about human rights and the risks to the respondent’s life and liberty.’ but ‘If the applicant is to have an effective remedy against a decision which is flawed because the decision maker has misdirected himself on the Convention which he himself says he took into account, it must surely be right to examine the substance of the argument. The ordinary principles of judicial review permit this approach because it was the rationality of legality of the decisions and not to some independent remedy that Mr Vaughan directed his argument.’ The court must assume that China will comply with its treaty obligations and provide a fair trial for someone returned to Hong Kong under extradition after the Hong Kong take-over by China.
Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Steyn, Lod Clyde, LordHutton
Gazette 18-Jun-1997, Times 26-May-1997, [1997] 1 WLR 839, [1997] UKHL 20, [1997] 3 All ER 992
House of Lords, Bailii
Extradition Act 1989 6(4)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Launder Admn 6-Aug-1996
The exercise of a discretion on extradition is judicially reviewable in the same way as are other decisions. . .

Cited by:
Cited – Regina (Lika) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 16-Dec-2002
The applicant was an ethnic Albanian, whose application for asylum had been rejected on the ground that he had passed through Germany. The Dublin Convention did not create rights enforceable by individuals, its purpose is to produce a system which . .
Cited – E v Secretary of State for the Home Department etc CA 2-Feb-2004
The court was asked as to the extent of the power of the IAT and Court of Appeal to reconsider a decision which it later appeared was based upon an error of fact, and the extent to which new evidence to demonstrate such an error could be admitted. . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Turgut CA 28-Jan-2000
When the Court of Appeal was asked to look at the decision of the Home Secretary on an appeal to him for asylum, the court should investigate the factual circumstances which lay behind the decision. The court must follow the practice of the European . .
Cited – Ahmad and Aswat v United States of America Admn 30-Nov-2006
The defendants appealed orders for their extradition. They were suspected of terrorist offences, and feared that instead of facing a trial, they would be placed before a military commission.
Held: The appeals failed. The court had diplomatic . .
See Also – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Launder QBD 18-Mar-1998
Speciality protection requirement satisfied by undertaking for re-surrender given by Hong Kong Chief Executive, despite excess time on bail. For the purposes of a challenge to extradition under domestic law, an applicant for habeas corpus is to be . .
Cited – Corner House Research and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v The Serious Fraud Office HL 30-Jul-2008
SFO Director’s decisions reviewable
The director succeeded on his appeal against an order declaring unlawful his decision to discontinue investigations into allegations of bribery. The Attorney-General had supervisory duties as to the exercise of the duties by the Director. It had . .
See Also – In the Matter of Launder In the Matter of Extradition Act 1989 In the Matter of an Application for Bail Admn 21-May-1997
. .
See Also – Launder v The United Kingdom ECHR 8-Dec-1997
The Commission considered the admissibility of a complaint that the United Kingdom would violate articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 if it extradited him to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Held: The application was manifestly ill-founded: . .
Cited – British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Ahmad Admn 11-Jan-2012
The BBC wished to interview the prisoner who had been detained pending extradition to the US since 2004, and now challenged decision to refuse the interview.
Held: The claim succeeded. The decision was quashed and must be retaken. If ever any . .
Cited – Barclay and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Others SC 22-Oct-2014
Constitutional Status of Chanel Islands considered
The Court was asked as to the role, if any, of the courts of England and Wales (including the Supreme Court) in the legislative process of one of the Channel Islands. It raised fundamental questions about the constitutional relationship between the . .
Cited – SG and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 18-Mar-2015
The court was asked whether it was lawful for the Secretary of State to make subordinate legislation imposing a cap on the amount of welfare benefits which can be received by claimants in non-working households, equivalent to the net median earnings . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions ex parte Kebilene etc Admn 30-Mar-1999
The applicants sought, by means of the Human Rights Act to challenge the way in which the decision had been made that they should be prosecuted under the 1989 Act, arguing that section 6(2) was inconsistent with the new Act.
Held: The Act . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
Cited – Bashir and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 30-Jul-2018
(Interim Judgment) The respondent asylum seekers had been rescued in the Mediterranean and taken to an RAF base in Akrotiri on Cyprus, a sovereign base area. The court was now asked whether they were entitled, or should be permitted, to be resettled . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 August 2021; Ref: scu.135027

Wellington v The United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Feb 2009

60682/08, [2009] ECHR 366
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Citing:
Appeal from – Wellington Regina, (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 10-Dec-2008
It was sought to extradite the defendant to face trial for two alleged murders. He now challenged the order for his extradition saying that his treatment in Missouri would amount to inhuman or degrading punishment in that if convicted he would face . .

Cited by:
See Also – Wellington v The United Kingdom ECHR 5-Oct-2010
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.316636

Coton v High Court of Dublin, Ireland: Admn 19 Dec 2012

Appeal from a decision that the appellant be extradited to Ireland pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant. The arrest warrant is an accusation warrant in relation to offences arising from a serious attack on the appellant’s former husband. In brief, the son of the appellant had opened the front door of the family home in Crumlin in Dublin and three men wearing balaclavas had brushed past. Two were armed with a knife and another with a lump hammer. The appellant herself and her daughter Sharon, who had arrived back home, had been tied up by the intruders. When he returned there was then an attack on the former husband.
Cranston J
[2012] EWHC 3874 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.471260

Svishtov Regional Prosecutor’s Office (Westminster Magistrates Court (United Kingdom)): ECJ 11 Feb 2021

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – National arrest warrant and European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State – Effective judicial protection – No judicial review in the issuing Member State prior to surrender of the requested person to that Member State – Right to liberty – Articles 6 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
C-648/20, [2021] EUECJ C-648/20PPU_O, [2021] EUECJ C-648/20PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2021:187
Bailii, Bailii
European

Updated: 06 August 2021; Ref: scu.664019

Cuoghi v Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison Brixton and Government of Switzerland: CA 15 Jul 1997

The obtaining of an order to obtain evidence in support of a writ of habeas corpus application is a criminal matter. The Court of Appeal has no civil jurisdiction. Extradition proceedings, as well as proceedings ancillary or incidental to those proceedings and including a habeas corpus application, were to be regarded as a criminal cause or matter.
Lord Bingham CJ considered that, when determining if proceedings are a criminal cause or matter, three questions were pertinent: (i) What is the purpose of the application [during which the impugned decision was made]? (ii) Is it a step in the process of bringing a defendant to trial? (iii) Can it affect the conduct of the trial?
Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ
Times 24-Jul-1997, [1997] EWCA Civ 2109, [1997] 1 WLR 1346
Bailii
Extradition Act 1989 7 9(8) 11(3), Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 3
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Ex parte Alice Woodhall CA 8-May-1888
Extradition proceedings are in their nature criminal proceedings. Lindley LJ said: ‘Can we say that the application in the present case is not an application in a criminal cause or matter? I think that in substance it certainly is. Its whole object . .
Cited – In Re Levin; Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Levin HL 10-Apr-1997
The applicant had been detained pending extradition to the United States on charges of fraud. He said the evidence would not have been sufficient to justify his committal for trial.
Held: The Francis case did not establish that the 1984 Act . .

Cited by:
Cited – Ew v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others CA 11-Feb-2010
The claimant was subject to an order requiring him to obtain leave before commencing any civil proceedings. He commenced a private prosecution which the respondent later decided to take over and discontinue. He sought judicial review of that . .
Cited – Alexander, Farrelly and Others, Re Judicial Review QBNI 5-Mar-2009
Each claimant said that they had been wrongfully arrested, the arresting police officers having either failed to ask whether the arrest was necessary (Farrelly), or mistakenly concluding so.
Held: The Order now contained in regulation . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.142506

Bonalumi v Secretary of State for the Home Department: CA 1985

In the course of extradition proceedings, an order was obtained under the 1879 Act. The defendant sought to appeal against the order, and applied to the Court of Appeal.
Held: The procedure under the 1879 Act was in the course of criminal proceedings (the eventual case in Sweden). The Court of Appeal Civil Division, by virtue of its constitution under the 1981 Act, had no jurisdiction in criminal matters, and could not hear the case.
[1985] QB 675, [1985] 1 All ER 797
Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1879 9, Supreme Court Act 1981 18(1)(a)
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – Ex parte Alice Woodhall CA 8-May-1888
Extradition proceedings are in their nature criminal proceedings. Lindley LJ said: ‘Can we say that the application in the present case is not an application in a criminal cause or matter? I think that in substance it certainly is. Its whole object . .
Applied – Re Clifford and O’Sullivan HL 1921
Military tribunals are ‘not courts at all, but mere committees of officers meeting to inform the mind and carry out the orders of the Commander-in-Chief’. . .
Applied – Amand v Home Secretary and Minister of Defence of Royal Netherlands Government HL 1943
A Dutch serviceman who had been arrested for desertion and brought before a magistrate who ordered him to be handed over to the Dutch military authorities under the Allied Forces Act 1940. An application for habeas corpus was rejected by a . .
Cited – Malone v Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis (No 2) ChD 28-Feb-1979
The court considered the lawfulness of telephone tapping. The issue arose following a trial in which the prosecution had admitted the interception of the plaintiff’s telephone conversations under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State. The . .
Not Followed – Regina v Grossman CA 1981
An application was made against Barclays Bank in London to obtain inspection of an account held at a branch of the bank in the Isle of Man.
Held: The Civil Division of the Court of Appeal which determined the application was later held to have . .
Cited – Chief Constable of Kent v V 1982
In order to obtain an injunction with respect to property in the possession of a defendant, the right sought to be enforced need not be a proprietary right of the claimant, nor a right for the benefit of the claimant itself. (Slade LJ dissenting) . .
Cited – Chief Constable of Hampshire v A Ltd CA 1984
The court explained Chief Constable of Kent -v- V: ‘jurisdiction to grant an injunction on the application of the Chief Constable in that case existed only if he could be found to have a sufficient interest in making the application, and they appear . .

Cited by:
Cited – Societe Eram Shipping Company Limited and others v Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd, Compagnie Internationale de Navigation HL 12-Jun-2003
The appeal concerned a final third party debt order (formerly a garnishee order). A judgment in France was registered here for enforcement. That jurisdiction was now challenged.
Held: A third party debt order is a proprietary remedy operating . .
Cited – In Re O (Restraint Order: Disclosure of Assets) 1991
A restraint order had been made against O in an action under the 1988 Act. He sought a variation. On the application of the prosecutor he was ordered to file an affidavit of means. He sought to appeal, but the prosecutor said no appeal lay.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.183547

Ex parte Alice Woodhall: CA 8 May 1888

Extradition proceedings are in their nature criminal proceedings. Lindley LJ said: ‘Can we say that the application in the present case is not an application in a criminal cause or matter? I think that in substance it certainly is. Its whole object is to enable the person in custody to escape being sent for trial in America upon a charge of forgery.’
Lord Esher MR said that the phrase ‘criminal cause or matter’ should receive the widest possible interpretation, and: ‘applies to a decision by way of judicial determination of any question raised in or with regard to proceedings, the subject-matter of which is criminal, at whatever stage of the proceedings the question arises.’
Lindley LJ, Lord Esher MR
(1888) 20 QBD 832, 1888] UKLawRpKQB 89
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Approved – Amand v Home Secretary and Minister of Defence of Royal Netherlands Government HL 1943
A Dutch serviceman who had been arrested for desertion and brought before a magistrate who ordered him to be handed over to the Dutch military authorities under the Allied Forces Act 1940. An application for habeas corpus was rejected by a . .
Applied – Bonalumi v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 1985
In the course of extradition proceedings, an order was obtained under the 1879 Act. The defendant sought to appeal against the order, and applied to the Court of Appeal.
Held: The procedure under the 1879 Act was in the course of criminal . .
Cited – Regina v Grossman CA 1981
An application was made against Barclays Bank in London to obtain inspection of an account held at a branch of the bank in the Isle of Man.
Held: The Civil Division of the Court of Appeal which determined the application was later held to have . .
Cited – Regina (McCann and Others) v Manchester Crown Court CA 9-Mar-2001
Proceedings applying for an anti-social behaviour order, were properly civil proceedings, with civil standards of evidence, and the Human Rights Act provisions relating to criminal proceedings, were not applicable either. The section included acts . .
Cited – Cuoghi v Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison Brixton and Government of Switzerland CA 15-Jul-1997
The obtaining of an order to obtain evidence in support of a writ of habeas corpus application is a criminal matter. The Court of Appeal has no civil jurisdiction. Extradition proceedings, as well as proceedings ancillary or incidental to those . .
Cited – Alexander, Farrelly and Others, Re Judicial Review QBNI 5-Mar-2009
Each claimant said that they had been wrongfully arrested, the arresting police officers having either failed to ask whether the arrest was necessary (Farrelly), or mistakenly concluding so.
Held: The Order now contained in regulation . .
Cited – Belhaj and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another SC 4-Jul-2018
Challenge to decision not to prosecute senior Intelligence Service officials for alleged offences in connection with his unlawful rendition and mistreatment in Libya. The issue here was whether on the hearing of the application for judicial review, . .
Approved – Provincial Cinematograph Theatres Ltd v Newcastle upon Tyne Profiteering Committee HL 1921
Under Section 1 of the Profiteering Act 1919, the Board of Trade had power to receive and investigate complaints of excessive profiteering. Section 2 of the Act gave a power to establish local committees to make such reports with a view to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.180864

Palar v Court of First Instance Brussels: Admn 15 Apr 2005

Laws LJ
[2005] EWHC 915 (Admin)
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 18 July 2021; Ref: scu.225179

Norris v United States of America and others; (Goldshield Group plc intervening): Admn 25 Jan 2007

The defendant was the former chief executive of a company manufacturing carbon products internationally. His extradition to the US was sought on the basis that he had conspired in a dishonest price-fixing conspiracy.
Held: The secrecy of such an agreement was an adequate basis for an allegation of dishonesty at common law, and the extradition could proceed. The obstruction of justice charges, taken at their face value, were very grave indeed. The evidence was that, if Mr Norris were convicted, the conduct in question was likely to attract a sentence of between 21 and 27 months imprisonment. There was a possibility that the sentence will be significantly longer in order to reflect the gravity of the conduct that the obstruction of justice was designed to conceal.
Auld LJ, Field J
[2007] EWHC 71 (Admin), Times 07-Feb-2007, [2007] 1 WLR 1730, [2007] 2 All ER 29
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003 103
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Handyside v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Dec-1976
The appellant had published a ‘Little Red Schoolbook’. He was convicted under the 1959 and 1964 Acts on the basis that the book was obscene, it tending to deprave and corrupt its target audience, children. The book claimed that it was intended to . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 . .
See Also – Norris v Government of The United States of America and Another Admn 15-May-2009
. .
Cited – Norris v Government of United States of America SC 24-Feb-2010
The defendant faced extradition to the USA on charges of the obstruction of justice. He challenged the extradition on the basis that it would interfere with his article 8 rights to family life, given that the offence was merely ancillary, the result . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 July 2021; Ref: scu.248217

Asliturk v HMP Wandsworth: Admn 16 Jun 2010

The claimant was remanded into custody pending extradition. He now appealed against refusal of bail.
Held: Bail was refused.
Pitchford LJ and Maddison J
[2010] EWHC 1720 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Asliturk v The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court Admn 12-Aug-2010
The claimants sought judicial review of the respondents’ refusal to order their discharge from extradition proceedings. The extradition hearing had not been commenced within the time specified in section 74. Though listed, through a prison error, . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 July 2021; Ref: scu.421504

Kadre v Government of France and Another: Admn 29 Jul 2005

The applicant sought habeas corpus to prevent his extradition to France.
Held: The English court was not to be concerned with facts underlying an extradition request. The laws of France were framed differently, but the facts alleged would constitute offences here. An extradition court was not to verify the proof of the allegations made, nor to question in a complex matter the emphasis which the requesting nation placed on some matters above others.
Lord Justice Brooke
[2005] EWHC 1712 (Admin), Times 12-Aug-2005
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Tarling HL 1978
The Government of Singapore sought Mr Tarling’s extradition inter alia on two charges of conspiring in Hong Kong to steal shares in a Hong Kong company, the property of a Singapore Company.
Held: a conspiracy in Hong Kong to steal shares in a . .
Cited – Castillo v The Kingdom of Spain, the Governor of HM Prison Belmarsh Admn 13-Jul-2004
In an application to extradite the claimant, the court heard a complaint that the description of the conduct alleged in the request was not a fair description of that conduct. Two of the offences charged were of an attempt to cause really serious . .
Cited – Regina v Bartle and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte; Regina v Evans and Similar (No 3) HL 24-Mar-1999
An application to extradite a former head of state for an offence which was not at the time an offence under English law would fail, but could proceed in respect of allegations of acts after that time. No immunity was intended for heads of state. . .
Cited – Re Evans HL 7-Oct-1994
Justices were not to hear evidence on extradition of effect law of requesting country. Countries which are parties to an extradition treaty or the like have a mutual interest in seeing that persons who commit crimes in one country do not escape . .
Cited – Regina v Anderson HL 1986
The House considered the mens rea required to establish conspiracy. Lord Bridge said: ‘[B]eyond the mere fact of agreement, the necessary mens rea of the crime is, in my opinion, established if, and only if, it is shown that the accused, when he . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.229155

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 did not satisfy the dual criminality rule, and that since the investigation was at an early stage, he was not yet an accused within the 2003 Act.
Held: The appeal failed. Although the EAW was issued by a prosecutor, the prosecutor was a judicial authority under the 2003 Act and Framework Decision. Mr Assange had been represented at a hearing of the Court of Appeal in Sweden, which had dismissed his appeal against the issuing an the arrest warrant. For a Framework Offence, dual criminality was not required, and ‘It is quite clear that the gravamen of the offence described is that Mr Assange had sexual intercourse with her without a condom and that she had only been prepared to consent to sexual intercourse with a condom. The description of the conduct makes clear that he consummated sexual intercourse when she was asleep and that she had insisted upon him wearing a condom . . it is difficult to see how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complaint alleges a state of sleep or half sleep, and secondly it avers that consent would not have been given without a condom. There is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom.’
Sir John Thomas thought that: ‘it is clear that in the present state of development of the common area for justice, mutual confidence in the common area for justice and the operation of the EAW will not be advanced unless the courts of the executing state scrutinise requests for surrender under the EAW with the intensity required by the circumstances of each case . .’
. . And: ‘Although the approach in Enander is one that will ordinarily apply, the designation under article 6 does not, in our view, always compel the recognition by another member state as conclusive, if the authority is self evidently not a judicial authority within the meaning of that broad term in the Framework Decision. It is of some interest to note in the light of our observation at para 37 on the status of a Ministry of Justice that in 2007 the Commissioner for Justice and Home Affairs in the Report on the Evaluation of the Transposition of the Framework Decision stated that the designation by some states directly or indirectly of the Ministry of Justice as a judicial authority was contrary to the terms of the Framework Decision. However there appear to have no instances where the Commission has taken action in respect of a body that should not have been designated as a judicial authority.
For example, if a warrant was issued by a Ministry of Justice which the member state had designated as an authority under article 6, it would not, in our view, be a valid EAW under the Framework Decision. The principles of mutual recognition and mutual confidence which underpin the common area for justice would not require the recognition of such a warrant, as it would self evidently not have been issued by a body which, on principles universally accepted in Europe, was judicial. In our view a national judge within the European Union is bound to uphold the principles of mutual recognition and mutual confidence for the reasons we have given at para 17; public confidence in the EAW would only be undermined by the recognition of an EAW issued by a Ministry of Justice in contradistinction to an EAW issued by a judge or prosecutor.
It was accepted by Miss Montgomery QC (who appeared for the prosecutor) that if circumstances arose where it could be said that the person issuing the EAW was not a judicial authority, the designating certificate issued by SOCA would not be conclusive. It would have to be challenged by judicial review. She was right to accept that the certificate was not conclusive, as under section 2(8) of the 2003 Act the function entrusted to SOCA is to certify that the issuing authority has the function of issuing EAWs. It does not certify that it is a judicial authority.’
Sir John Thomas P(QB)
[2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin)
Bailii, Judiciary
Extradition Act 2003
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 . .
Cited – Regina v Linekar CACD 21-Oct-1994
L appealed against his conviction for rape. His victim was a woman working as a prostitute. He said that he had simply made off afterwards without payment. He was convicted on the basis that he had procured the act by a false pretence by him that he . .

Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 – 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 – Monica, Regina (on The Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions Admn 14-Dec-2018
Deception as to identity did not undermine consent
The claimant had been an environmental campaigner. She had had a sexual relationship with a man who was unknown to her an undercover police officer. She now challenged the decision not to prosecute him for rape.
Held: Her claim failed. Case . .
Cited – F, Regina (on The Application of) v The Director of Public Prosecutions and Another Admn 24-Apr-2013
Application for judicial review of the refusal of the Director of Public Prosecutions to initiate a prosecution for rape and/or sexual assault of the claimant by her former partner. The claimant said that she had initially consented to sex with her . .
Cited – Lawrance, Regina v CACD 23-Jul-2020
Consent not removed by Lie as to Vasectomy
The defendant appealed from his conviction of rape. He had represented to his victim that he had had a vasectomy to secure consent which the court found had been vitiated.
Held: The appeal was allowed. Could a lie about fertility negate . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 July 2021; Ref: scu.448098

Hilali v Central Court of Criminal Proceedings Number 5 and Another: Admn 16 Nov 2006

[2006] EWHC 3013 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Hilali v The National Court, Madrid and Another (No 5) Admn 26-May-2006
Appeal against an extradition order for his extradition to Spain. The court was concerned with an issue of ‘extraneous circumstances’ arising under, respectively, section 6(1) of the 1989 Act and section 13 of the 2003 Act. . .

Cited by:
See Also – 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 . .
See Also – Hilali v Central Court of Criminal Proceedings National Court (Madrid No 5) Admn 15-Jun-2007
. .
See Also – 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 June 2021; Ref: scu.246755

Goluchowski v District Court In Elblag Poland: Admn 4 Feb 2015

References: [2015] EWHC 332 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Judges: Mitting J
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case is cited by:

  • At Admin – Goluchowski and SAS v District Court and Circuit Court In Poland SC 29-Jun-2016 (, [2016] UKSC 36, , [2016] 3 CMLR 39, [2016] 1 WLR 2665, [2016] WLR(D) 345, [2017] 2 All ER 887, , UKSC 2015/0073, , )
    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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 15 October 2020; Ref: scu.556121

Dunne v High Court Dublin: Admnz 9 Jul 2009

References: [2009] EWHC 2003 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Leveson LJ, Rafferty J
Ratio:
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Lukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland SC (Bailii, [2012] UKSC 20, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2011/0177, SC, SC Summary, [2012] 1 WLR 1604, [2012] HRLR 22, [2012] 4 All ER 667, [2012] WLR(D) 158, WLRD)
    Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for the extradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 18 September 2019
Ref: 372675

The judicial authority in Sweden v Assange; 24 Feb 2011

References: [2011] EW Misc 5 (MC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Howard Riddle, Senior District Judge
Ratio:(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.
Statutes: Extradition Act 2003
This case is cited by:

  • At Magistrates Court – Assange -v- The Swedish Prosecution Authority SC (Bailii, [2012] UKSC 22, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, UKSC 2011/0264, SC, [2012] 2 AC 471, [2012] 3 WLR 1, [2012] 4 All ER 1249, [2013] 1 CMLR 4)
    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 (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin))
    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 . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 04-Jun-16
Ref: 430056

Serbeh v Governor of HM Prison Brixton; 31 Oct 2002

References: CO/2853/2002, Unreported, 31 October 2002k
Coram: Kennedy LJ
Kennedy LJ said: ‘[T]here is (still) a fundamental assumption that the requesting state is acting in good faith.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Ahmad and Aswat -v- United States of America Admn (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 2927 (Admin), Times 05-Dec-06, [2007] ACD 54, [2007] UKHRR 525, [2007] HRLR 8)
    The defendants appealed orders for their extradition. They were suspected of terrorist offences, and feared that instead of facing a trial, they would be placed before a military commission.
    Held: The appeals failed. The court had diplomatic . .

Piaggio (Germany); 14 Feb 2007

References: Unreported, 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 claim alleging breach of article 1(3) of Law no 69 of 2005 on the ground that the EAW was not signed by a judge is completely unfounded.
The provision allegedly requiring signature by a judge does not refer to the EAW, as the appellant mistakenly claims, but to the precautionary measure on the basis of which the warrant was issued: in the present case, it is in fact the arrest warrant issued by the Hamburg District Magistrate’s Court on 24 August 2005, regularly signed by Judge Reinke.
The guarantee specified in the aforesaid article1(3) does not relate to the act requesting the Member State to grant extradition but is directly connected with the custodial measure, that is to say it is a substantial guarantee concerned with the basic conditions underlying the EAW, which must be subject to jurisdiction. In this procedure, the true guarantee of personal freedom is not the fact that the EAW is issued by a judicial authority but the fact that the warrant is based on a judicial measure.
Moreover, article 6 of the framework decision leaves to the individual Member State the task of determining the judicial authority responsible for issuing (or executing) a European Arrest Warrant, and the Italian implementing law, with regard to the active extradition procedure, provides for certain cases in which the Public Prosecutor’s office is to be responsible for issuing the EAW (article 28 of Law no 69/2005).
Essentially, the alleged breach of the law in respect of the fact that the EWA was signed by the Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office, must be excluded.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Assange -v- The Swedish Prosecution Authority SC (Bailii, [2012] UKSC 22, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, UKSC 2011/0264, SC, [2012] 2 AC 471, [2012] 3 WLR 1, [2012] 4 All ER 1249, [2013] 1 CMLR 4)
    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.

Dundon v The Governor of Cloverhill Prison; 19 Dec 2005

References: [2006] 1 IR 518, [2005] IESC 83, [2006] 1 ILRM 321
Links: Bailii
Coram: Murray CJ, Denham J, Hardiman J. Geoghegan J, Fennelly J
(Supreme Court of Ireland) The UK had issued a European arrest warrant in relation to the appellant. On 11 February 2004 he was arrested in Ireland and remanded in custody. 93 days later, following various adjournments of which some had been at his request, the High Court made an order for his surrender. On 16 March 2005, thus following a significant further delay, the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal. He forthwith issued fresh proceedings in which, by reference to his rights under the Irish Constitution, he challenged the lawfulness of his continued detention after the expiry of 60 days following his arrest. Ireland had transposed the Decision into its law by the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
Held: Section 16(10) did not automatically entitle the appellant to release on the expiry of 60 days (nor, by analogy, did section 16(11) have that effect on the expiry of 90 days) from the date of his arrest. The terms of section 10 of the Irish Act provided: ‘Where a judicial authority in an issuing state duly issues a European arrest warrant in respect of a person –
(a) against whom that state intends to bring proceedings for the offence to which the . . warrant relates, or
(b) . . that person shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Framework Decision be arrested and surrendered to the issuing state.’ The appellant argued that, even if the terms of section 16(10) and (11) of that Act were not strong enough to secure the success of his appeal, the effect of section 10 was to bring the whole of the Decision into Irish law and that an overall reading of the Decision entitled him to release, and that, whereas section 16(10) and (11) place time limits of 60 and 90 days on the making only of the decision by the High Court, Article 17(3) and (4) of the Decision requires that the ‘final’ decision be made within those limits; and, by reference thereto, he appears also to have relied upon the significant further delay between the making of the order for his surrender and the hearing of his appeal. The terms of section 10 of the Irish Act required the Court to appraise the Decision in detail. Denham J described the time limits of 60 days and 90 days in Article 17(3) and (4) of the Decision as ‘exhortation’; and Geoghegan J explained that they were set ‘with a view to internal discipline within the member states and not with a view to conferring individual rights in individual cases’..
Statutes: Council Framework Decision of 13th June 2002
This case is cited by:

Schreiber v Canada (Attorney General); 12 Sep 2002

References: [2002] SCJ No 63, [2002] 3 SCR 269, [2002] SCC 62
Links: SCC
Coram: McLachlin, Beverley; Gonthier, Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ
SCC (Supreme Court of Canada) International law – Sovereign immunity – Attornment to Canadian court’s jurisdiction exception – Germany initiating extradition process against Canadian citizen – Citizen arrested by RCMP and spending eight days in jail – Citizen suing Germany seeking damages for personal injuries suffered as a result of his arrest and detention in Canada – Whether Germany immune from jurisdiction of Canadian courts – Whether attornment to Canadian court’s jurisdiction exception applicable so as to deprive Germany of its immunity from instant action – Whether Germany waived its immunity from lawsuits in Canadian courts when it initiated extradition process – State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18, s. 4(2)(b).
International law – Sovereign immunity — Personal injury exception — Scope of exception — Germany initiating extradition process against Canadian citizen — Citizen arrested by RCMP and spending eight days in jail — Citizen suing Germany seeking damages for personal injuries suffered as a result of his arrest and detention in Canada — Whether Germany immune from jurisdiction of Canadian courts — Whether personal injury exception applicable so as to deprive Germany of its immunity from instant action — Whether exception distinguishes between jure imperii and jure gestionis acts — Whether exception applies only to claim of physical injury — State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18, s. 6(a).
Statutes — Interpretation — Bilingual statutes — Personal injury exception to state immunity — Meaning of expression ‘personal injury’ — Whether French version best reflects common intention of legislator found in both versions — Whether amendment made by Federal Law-Civil Law Harmonization Act to English version substantively changed the law — Purpose of harmonization legislation — State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18, s. 6(a) — Federal Law-Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1, S.C. 2001, c. 4, s. 121.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – The Federal Republic of Nigeria -v- Ogbonna EAT (Bailii, [2011] UKEAT 0585_10_1207)
    EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – State immunity
    A claim for compensation for psychiatric illness caused by unlawful discrimination is a claim for ‘personal injury’ within the meaning of section 5 of the State . .

Dunne v High Court Dublin; Admnz 9 Jul 2009

References: [2009] EWHC 2003 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Leveson LJ, Rafferty J
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Lukaszewski -v- The District Court In Torun, Poland SC (Bailii, [2012] UKSC 20, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2011/0177, SC, SC Summary, [2012] 1 WLR 1604, [2012] HRLR 22, [2012] 4 All ER 667, [2012] WLR(D) 158)
    Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for th eextradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal . .

In re Avishalom Sarig; 26 Mar 1993

References: [1993] COD 472, CO/2643/92
Coram: Evans LJ
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 as final because if he were returned the court would have a discretion whether or not to set that conviction aside. Evans LJ said: ‘The question is, does the applicant have a right to trial of the alleged or admitted extradition crime, notwithstanding the conviction which has been recorded?’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Caldarelli -v- Court of Naples HL (Bailii, [2008] UKHL 51, HL, Times 19-Aug-08)
    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 . .