Category: Extradition

Engler v Her Majesty’s Advocate: HCJ 4 May 2010

Citations:

[2010] ScotHC HCJAC – 42, 2010 JC 235

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003

Cited by:

Cited – 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: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.414932

Bary and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 7 Aug 2009

The defendants resisted extradition to the US to face charges of conspiracy to murder US citizens, saying that as suspected terrorists the likely prison conditions in which they would be held would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Held: The applications failed. There is no one standard applicable across the world as to what would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. The prison regime would be severe, but it would not be a breach of the applicants human rights to be extradited to face it: ‘Whether the high Article 3 threshold for inhuman and degrading treatment is crossed depends on the facts of the particular case. There is no common standard for what does or does not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment throughout the many different countries of the world.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Scott Baker, Mr Justice David Clarke

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2068 (Admin), Times 14-Oct-2009

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989, European Convention on Human Rights 3 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – In Re Khalid Al-Fawwaz (Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus) (on Appeal From a Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division) HL 17-Dec-2001
The fact that a crime for which extradition was sought was extra-territorial one to the country making the request, was not enough to counter the application. The schedule required the person to be ‘accused or have been convicted of an extradition . .
Cited – Soering v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989
(Plenary Court) The applicant was held in prison in the UK, pending extradition to the US to face allegations of murder, for which he faced the risk of the death sentence, which would be unlawful in the UK. If extradited, a representation would be . .
Cited – Warren, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another Admn 14-Mar-2003
Hale LJ said that it would not generally be unjust to send someone back to a country face a fair process to determine whether or not he is fit to face trial adding: ‘I accept that it may be wrong or oppressive to do so if the inevitable result will . .
Cited – 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 – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
Cited – Deya v The Government of Kenya 2008
. .
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 . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bary and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice and Another Admn 19-Mar-2010
The applicants, incarcerated at Long Lartin pending extradition or deportation, challenged a decision further restricting their movements within the prison. All were unconvicted, and all but one were suspected of terrorist crimes. The changes were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.372683

Lord Advocate (Representing The Taiwanese Judicial Authorities) v Dean: SC 28 Jun 2017

(Scotland) The respondent was to be extradited to Taiwan to serve the balance of a prison term. His appeal succeeded and the order quashed on the basis that his treatment in the Taiwanese prison system would infringe his human rights. The Lord Advocate now appealed.
Held: The question was a devolution issue, being ‘a question whether a purported or proposed exercise of a function by a member of the Scottish Executive is, or would be, incompatible with any of the Convention rights’
Held: The appeal was allowed on the devolution issue, and the case remitted to the Appeal Court to reconsider the appeal.
The HCJ having misguided itself as to the assessment of the condition in a Taiwan jail, the Court reconsidered them, saying: ‘In this case the assurances are given on behalf of the central government of Taiwan, which is a developed society with a tradition of respect for the rule of law. There is no suggestion that the Taiwanese authorities ill-treated Mr Dean before he fled the country. The assurances are given by a senior responsible official and have been confirmed by two Ministers of Justice and by the Director General of the agency with responsibility for managing prisons. The assurances, and in particular those about his accommodation and separating him from group activities with other prisoners if that is necessary for his safety, are specific rather than general. The assurances envisage that United Kingdom consular staff will have access to Mr Dean in prison and include an undertaking to remedy any breach of the assurances which the consular staff raise with the prison authorities. The memorandum of understanding and the assurances have given a role to the consular staff which they have not had in the past in relation to United Kingdom citizens imprisoned in Taiwan. There is no reason to think that the consular staff would not perform their obligations to monitor the assurances if Mr Dean were to request their help. While there appears to have been no examination of the access which Mr Dean might have to legal advice, Dr McManus recorded the apparently successful operation of a complaints system in the prison and that some prisoners had obtained access to the domestic courts. This is the first occasion on which Taiwan has sought to extradite a United Kingdom citizen and the memorandum of understanding and the assurances are therefore untested. .’

Judges:

Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 44, [2017] WLR 2721, [2017] SLT 773, [2017] 1 WLR 2721, 2017 GWD 21-345, [2017] WLR(D) 432, 2017 SCCR 388, UKSC 2016/0212

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 20170306am Video, SC 20170306pm video

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights, Scotland Act 1998 57(2), Extradition Act 2003 73

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Cited – Saadi v Italy (United Kingdom intervening) ECHR 28-Feb-2008
(Grand Chamber) When considering the appropriateness of a deportation order to a country with which the deporting country had a memorandum of understanding that the destination country would not torture the deportee, a court must look beyond the . .
Cited – Omar Othman (Abu Qatada) v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Jan-2012
The applicant resisted his proposed deportation to Jordan to face charges of terrorism. He complained was that his retrial in Jordan would amount to a flagrant denial of justice because of a number of factors including a very real risk that . .
Cited – Babar Ahmad And Aswat v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Apr-2012
The applicants said that if extradited to the USA to face charges related to terrorism, they would risk facing either imprisonment by Presidential decree, or full life terms.
Held: Detention conditions and length of sentences of five alleged . .
Leave refused – Dean v The Lord Advocate and Another HCJ 23-Sep-2016
Application for Leave to Appeal to UK Supreme Court – refused . .
Leave refused (2) – Lord Advocate v Dean HCJ 24-Nov-2016
Application for Leave to Appeal to UK Supreme Court – refused . .
Cited – BH and Another v The Lord Advocate and Another SC 20-Jun-2012
The appellants wished to resist their extradition to the US to face criminal charges for drugs. As a married couple that said that the extraditions would interfere with their children’s rights to family life.
Held: The appeals against . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – HLR v France ECHR 29-Apr-1997
‘Owing to the absolute character of the right guaranteed, the court does not rule out the possibility that article 3 of the Convention may also apply where the danger emanates from persons or groups of persons who are not public officials. However, . .
Cited – Bagdanavicius and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v HL 26-May-2005
The claimants said they had been subjected to harassment and violence from non-state agents in their home country of Lithuania, and sought asylum.
Held: It was for the person claiming the protection of the Convention provisions for . .
Cited – Gomes v Trinidad and Tobago HL 29-Apr-2009
Each appellant challenged orders for their extradition, saying that the delay had been too prolonged, and that detention in Trinidad’s appalling jails would be an infringement of their human rights.
Held: The House had to consider its own . .
Cited – HLR v France ECHR 29-Apr-1997
‘Owing to the absolute character of the right guaranteed, the court does not rule out the possibility that article 3 of the Convention may also apply where the danger emanates from persons or groups of persons who are not public officials. However, . .
Cited – Ramirez Sanchez v France ECHR 27-Jan-2005
The applicant complained that he had been held in solitary confinement for a period of nearly 8 years whilst in prison, and had not been given a remedy.
Held: There had been no breach of article 3 by the confinement, but article 13 had been . .
Cited – Ocalan v Turkey ECHR 12-May-2005
(Grand Chamber) – The applicant had been detained in Kenya. He had allowed himself to be taken by Kenyan officials to Nairobi airport in the belief that he was free to leave for a destination of his choice, but they took him to an aircraft in which . .
Cited – Shahid v Scottish Ministers (Scotland) SC 14-Oct-2015
The appellant convicted of a racially-aggravated vicious murder. Since conviction he had spent almost five years in segregation from other prisoners. The appellant now alleged that some very substantial periods of segregation had been in breach of . .
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 . .
Cited – HH v Deputy Prosecutor of The Italian Republic, Genoa SC 20-Jun-2012
In each case the defendant sought to resist European Extradition Warrants saying that an order would be a disporportionate interference in their human right to family life. The Court asked whether its approach as set out in Norris, had to be amended . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Human Rights, Constitutional

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.588314

Lord Advocate v Dean: HCJ 24 Nov 2016

Application for Leave to Appeal to UK Supreme Court – refused

Judges:

Lady Paton, Lord Drummond Young, Lady Clark of Calton

Citations:

[2016] ScotHC HCJAC – 117, 2017 SCCR 17, 2017 SCL 170, 2016 GWD 38-672, 2017 SLT 121

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

See Also – Dean v The Lord Advocate and Another HCJ 23-Sep-2016
Application for Leave to Appeal to UK Supreme Court – refused . .

Cited by:

Leave refused (2) – Lord Advocate (Representing The Taiwanese Judicial Authorities) v Dean SC 28-Jun-2017
(Scotland) The respondent was to be extradited to Taiwan to serve the balance of a prison term. His appeal succeeded and the order quashed on the basis that his treatment in the Taiwanese prison system would infringe his human rights. The Lord . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.577920

Dean v The Lord Advocate and Another: HCJ 23 Sep 2016

Application for Leave to Appeal to UK Supreme Court – refused

Citations:

[2016] ScotHC HCJAC – 83, 2017 SCCR 17, 2016 GWD 38-672, 2017 SCL 170, 2017 SLT 121

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3, Extradition Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

See Also – Lord Advocate v Dean HCJ 24-Nov-2016
Application for Leave to Appeal to UK Supreme Court – refused . .
Leave refused – Lord Advocate (Representing The Taiwanese Judicial Authorities) v Dean SC 28-Jun-2017
(Scotland) The respondent was to be extradited to Taiwan to serve the balance of a prison term. His appeal succeeded and the order quashed on the basis that his treatment in the Taiwanese prison system would infringe his human rights. The Lord . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.577887

Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski and Others: Admn 6 May 2015

The court set out the conditions for the use of article 8 rights claims in extradition proceedings where the proposed extradition would be to other states within the European Union.

Judges:

John Thomas, Baron Thomas of Cwmgiedd LCJ, Ryder LJ, Ouseley J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin), [2016] 3 All ER 71, [2016] 1 WLR 551, [2015] WLR(D) 207

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 7, Extradition Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.546412

Kapri v The Lord Advocate Representing The Government of The Republic of Albania: HCJ 1 Jun 2012

Citations:

[2012] ScotHC HCJAC – 84

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

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 . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
See Also – Kapri v Her Majesty’s Advocate (For The Republic of Albania) HCJ 25-Apr-2014
. .
See Also – Kapri v Her Majesty’s Advocate, Re In The Application By (Albania) HCJ 17-Jun-2014
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 16 August 2022; Ref: scu.515061

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: ‘The Commission considers that it is only in exceptional circumstances that the extradition of a person to face trial on charges of serious offences committed in the requesting state would be held to be an unjustified or disproportionate interference with the right to respect for family life.’

Citations:

(1997) 25 EHRR CD67, [1997] ECHR 106

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Citing:

See Also – 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. . .
See Also – 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 . .
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
. .

Cited by:

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 . .
Cited – HH v Deputy Prosecutor of The Italian Republic, Genoa SC 20-Jun-2012
In each case the defendant sought to resist European Extradition Warrants saying that an order would be a disporportionate interference in their human right to family life. The Court asked whether its approach as set out in Norris, had to be amended . .
Cited – BH and Another v The Lord Advocate and Another SC 20-Jun-2012
The appellants wished to resist their extradition to the US to face criminal charges for drugs. As a married couple that said that the extraditions would interfere with their children’s rights to family life.
Held: The appeals against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Extradition

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401808

King v The United Kingdom: ECHR 26 Jan 2010

Mr King was accused of being a member of a gang engaged in a conspiracy to import large quantities of ecstasy into Australia. He appealed against extradition saying that this would interfere with his article 8 rights. He had in the United Kingdom two young children and a mother whose health would not allow her to travel to Australia.
Held: The article 8 claim was inadmissible. ‘Mindful of the importance of extradition arrangements between States in the fight against crime (and in particular crime with an international or cross-border dimension), the Court considers that it will only be in exceptional circumstances that an applicant’s private or family life in a Contracting State will outweigh the legitimate aim pursued by his or her extradition . . If the applicant were [eventually] sentenced to imprisonment [in Australia, with the consequent impact on the rest of his family,] his extradition cannot be said to be ‘disproportionate to the legitimate aim served’.’

Judges:

Garlicki P

Citations:

9742/07, [2010] ECHR 164

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Cited by:

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 . .
Cited – HH v Deputy Prosecutor of The Italian Republic, Genoa SC 20-Jun-2012
In each case the defendant sought to resist European Extradition Warrants saying that an order would be a disporportionate interference in their human right to family life. The Court asked whether its approach as set out in Norris, had to be amended . .
Cited – BH and Another v The Lord Advocate and Another SC 20-Jun-2012
The appellants wished to resist their extradition to the US to face criminal charges for drugs. As a married couple that said that the extraditions would interfere with their children’s rights to family life.
Held: The appeals against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Extradition, Family

Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401702

Sciezka v The Court In Sad Okregowy, Kielce, Poland: Admn 4 Jun 2009

Service of an unsealed notice of appeal was at worst a procedural error which should not vitiate an appeal against extradition.

Judges:

Sullivan LJ, Wilkie J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 2259 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 26(4)

Cited by:

Cited – Lukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland SC 23-May-2012
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.396496

Mann, Regina (on The Application of) v The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Others: Admn 19 Jan 2010

The defendant had been convicted of an offence in Portugal and sentenced to imprisonment. He was given an order for voluntary departure, but his lawyers did not file an appeal. When a European Arrest Warrant was issued, he now sought an order for judicial review of SOCA’s decision not to resist the warrant, citing problems in the trial. His own appeal against the magistrate’s order was out of time.
Held: The court had no jurisdiction to hear the request: ‘Now that the Senior District Judge has ordered the requested person’s extradition the hearing before him is finished and s.9(1) is no longer applicable. Since the claimant did not file or serve an appeal notice within the 7 day required period, the European arrest warrant has been ‘disposed of’ pursuant to s.213(1)(c) of the 2003 Act. Part 1 of the 2003 Act provides a statutory scheme laying down a strict and tight timetable which precludes the possibility of invoking s.142 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.
For those reasons, I conclude that it is not arguable that this court has any jurisdiction to entertain any claim for judicial review, be it to challenge a non-existent decision of SOCA or the refusal of the Senior District Judge to exercise a non-existent jurisdiction to re-open the statutory extradition hearing.

Judges:

Moses LJ, Hickinbottom

Citations:

[2010] EWHC 48 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 34, Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 142

Citing:

Cited – Hilali, Re; Regina (Hilali) v Governor of Whitewall Prison and Another HL 30-Jan-2008
The applicant had been detained pending his extradition. He complained that that continued detention became unlawful after fundamantal changes in the case. The telephone intercepts which were the basis of the extradition had been ruled unlawful and . .
Cited – Mucelli v Government of Albania (Criminal Appeal From Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice) HL 21-Jan-2009
The House was asked whether someone who wished to appeal against an extradition order had an obligation also to serve his appellant’s notice on the respondent within the seven days limit, and whether the period was capable of extension by the court. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Judicial Review

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.392990

Government of the United States of America v Tollman and Another: Admn 7 Feb 2008

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 184 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – United States of America, Regina (on the Application of) v Senior District Judge, Bow Street Magistrates Court, and Tollman and another Admn 12-Jun-2006
The USA appealed against an order made in extradition proceedings. The defendants sought the supply of further papers by the prosecutor which might support their claim for abuse of process. The USA replied that the documents were protected by either . .
See Also – United States of America, Regina (on the Application of) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court Admn 6-Sep-2006
The defendant a serving prisoner sought an adjournment of his extradition to a time closer to the end of the sentence he was to serve in England.
Held: The court had sympathy with the argument that where the district judge is being invited to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.264131

Ahsan, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions; Tajik v Government of the United States of America: Admn 10 Apr 2008

A request was made by the United States for extradition to answer charges for alleged terrorist offences.

Judges:

Richards LJ

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 666 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Syed Tahla Ahsan v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-Feb-2009
. .
Cited – McKinnon, Regina (On the Application of) v Secretary Of State for Home Affairs Admn 31-Jul-2009
Assurances for Extradition
Extradition of the defendant was sought to the US to face allegations of hacking into defence computers there. He said this would infringe his article 3 rights, saying that he suffered Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Held: The application failed. US . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.266583

Mucelli v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 18 Jan 2008

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 249 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Mucelli v Albania and Another Admn 15-Nov-2007
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Mucelli v Government of Albania (Criminal Appeal From Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice) HL 21-Jan-2009
The House was asked whether someone who wished to appeal against an extradition order had an obligation also to serve his appellant’s notice on the respondent within the seven days limit, and whether the period was capable of extension by the court. . .
See Also – Mucelli, Regina (on The Application of) v The Government of Albania Admn 27-Jan-2012
Cranston J said that in his view the law and practice in Albania was such that there was no real risk that the applicant would suffer a flagrant denial of justice on his return to Albania, as he was entitled to a retrial on the merits of the case . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 11 August 2022; Ref: scu.384155

Mamatkulov And Askarov v Turkey: ECHR 4 Feb 2005

Grand Chamber – while there may have been reasons for doubting whether the applicants would receive a fair trial, there was not sufficient information to show that any possible irregularities in the trial were liable to constitute a flagrant denial of justice. In para O-III14 of their joint partly dissenting opinion, to which Judge Rozakis also subscribed, Judges Bratza, Bonello and Hedigan said that in their view the word ‘flagrant’ was intended to convey a breach of the principles of fair trial guaranteed by article 6 which was so fundamental as to amount to a nullification, or destruction of the very essence, of the right guaranteed by the article.

Citations:

46951/99, [2005] ECHR 64, 46827/99

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 6

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

See Also – Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey ECHR 4-Feb-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicants had resisted extradition to Uzbekistan from Turkey to stand trial on very serious charges, saying that if returned they would be tortured. There was material to show that that was not a fanciful fear. On application . .
Cited – Omar Othman (Abu Qatada) v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Jan-2012
The applicant resisted his proposed deportation to Jordan to face charges of terrorism. He complained was that his retrial in Jordan would amount to a flagrant denial of justice because of a number of factors including a very real risk that . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Kiarie and Byndloss, Regina (on The Applications of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 14-Jun-2017
The court considered a challenge to the rules governing ‘out of country’ appeals against immigration decisions. They had in each case convictions leading to prison terms for serious drugs related offences.
Held: The appeals were allowed, and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.277214

In re Togyer: QBD 4 Jun 2003

The applicant had been arrested and resisted his extradition to the Czech Republic saying that the offence was so minor as not to justify extradition.
Held: The offence was equivalent to obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception, with a value of pounds 40.00. It was not a serious offence. However the court could also take into account other facts about the extraditee including his record. In this case the offence had been committed whilst he was released from a much longer sentence and on licence. That made the offence sufficiently serious to support extradition.

Judges:

Lord Woolf, Goldring J

Citations:

Times 12-Jul-2003, [2003] EWHC 1418 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 11

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.184475

Cogan v The Provincial Court of Almeria: Admn 22 Jan 2015

The claimant appealed against an order for his extradition to Spain, ‘The basis upon which he argued before the District Judge and argues before this court that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him is found in the psychiatric illness from which he suffers, which gives rise to a risk of suicide should he be extradited.’

Judges:

Burnett LJ, Gross J

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 89 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.541716

Norris v Government of The United States of America and Another: Admn 15 May 2009

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 995 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Norris, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 24-Feb-2006
The claimant challenged his extradition to the US saying that it was wrong for the US to continue to be listed as a designated country for extradition under section 84.
Held: The fact that the US had not yet ratified the treaty under which a . .
See Also – 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 . .
See Also – Norris v United States of America and others HL 12-Mar-2008
The detainee appealed an order for extradition to the USA, saying that the offence (price-fixing) was not one known to English common law. The USA sought his extradition under the provisions of the Sherman Act.
Held: It was not, and it would . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.377554

Trajer v The Lord Advocate: HCJ 19 Dec 2008

Citations:

[2008] ScotHC HCJAC – 78

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Cited – 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.

Extradition

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.304564

Hamza and Others v Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 5 Oct 2012

‘Each of the five claimants is the subject of an extradition request issued by the Government of the United States of America in order that each of them may stand trial in that country for terrorism related offences. Each has brought separate claims for judicial review and for stays of their extradition, raising different issues in each case, except for an issue common to four of them relating to the prison conditions they would experience at ADX Florence, Colorado.’

Judges:

Sir John Thomas P QBD

Citations:

[2012] EWHC 2736 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition, Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.465462

Hilali, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 25 Nov 2008

Judges:

Lord Justice Dyson
Mr Justice Griffith Williams

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2892 (Admin), [2010] 1 WLR 241, [2009] 1 All ER 834

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.278260

Finch v Public Prosecutor Tribunal De Grande Instance Boulogne Sur Mer France: Admn 20 May 2009

Appeal against a decision in extradition proceedings for Mr Finch’s extradition to France, raising a single issue: whether the District Judge was wrong to decide that Mr Finch’s extradition to France would not be oppressive for delay.

Judges:

Sir Anthony May P QBD, Blake J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1394 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 811 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.347286

Leymann and Pustovarov (Police and Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters) French Text: ECJ 1 Dec 2008

Europa Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Article 27 – European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States – Specialty principle – Consent procedure

Citations:

C-388/08, [2008] EUECJ C-388/08

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Extradition

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.278371

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 bar, in that there is a heightened public interest in the alleged offender being tried: provided, of course, that the trial and the conditions in which he will be held will be fair.’

Judges:

Laws LJ, Openshaw J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 723 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – Croatia v Spanovic Admn 27-Jul-2007
The government of Croatia sought the extradition of the respondent and now appealed against its refusal which had been on the grounds of the long passage of time. . .
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 – La Torre v Italy Admn 20-Jun-2007
Laws LJ considered the decision in Kakis and said: ‘All the circumstances must be considered in order to judge whether the unjust/oppressive test is met. Culpable delay on the part of the State may certainly colour that judgment and may sometimes be . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.344020

Taylor v HMP Wandsworth and Others: Admn 15 May 2009

Judges:

Richards LJ, Blair J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1020 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ignaoua and others v The Judicial Authority of the Courts of Milan and others Admn 30-Oct-2008
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 25 July 2022; Ref: scu.343930

Office of Public Prosecutor of Hamburg, Germany v Hughes: Admn 26 Feb 2009

The court treated as a mere procedural error, which could be corrected, the endorsement in a notice of appeal of a wrong date of arrest (the effect of such endorsement being that, on the face of the notice, the 40 day period allowed for the court to begin to hear the substance of the appeal would have expired a month early). The court has power under rule 3.10 to make an order to remedy such an error.

Judges:

Sir Anthony May P QBD, Silber J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 279 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Extradition

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.343057

Hutton v Government of Australia: Admn 20 Mar 2009

The applicant challenged his extradition to Australia on a charge of murder. He suffered schizophrenia, and confesed to the killing whilst receiving hospital treatment. He said that after 23 years, his extradition would be oppresive.

Judges:

Scott-Baker LJ, Silber J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 564 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 91

Extradition

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.329564

Norris, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 24 Feb 2006

The claimant challenged his extradition to the US saying that it was wrong for the US to continue to be listed as a designated country for extradition under section 84.
Held: The fact that the US had not yet ratified the treaty under which a UK citizen could be extradited to the US without establishment of a prima facie case, and that therefore the arrangements were not reciprocal, did not undermine their simple applicability here. The claim for judicial review failed.

Judges:

Cresswell J, President

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 280 (Admin), Times 01-Mar-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 84(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – McKinnon v USA and Another Admn 3-Apr-2007
The defendant appealed an order for his extradition. He had used his computer in London to access remotely defence and other government computers in the USA, and deleted files and copied others onto his own computer. He had been offered a deal if he . .
See Also – Norris v Government of The United States of America and Another Admn 15-May-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.238706

In the Matter of Launder In the Matter of Extradition Act 1989 In the Matter of an Application for Bail: Admn 21 May 1997

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 490

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – 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. . .
See Also – 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 . .

Cited by:

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 . .
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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 24 July 2022; Ref: scu.137435