Category: Extradition

Von Der Pahlen v Leoben High Court, Austria: Admn 4 Mar 2009

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 383 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 2(4)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 23 July 2022; Ref: scu.314294

Zorzi v Attorney General Appeal Court of Paris (France): Admn 29 Jul 2019

‘Is a requested person a ‘fugitive’ if she fails to return to the jurisdiction of the requesting state from the country of which she is a resident in breach of the obligation placed on her by the courts of the requesting state at a time when she was in her home country?’

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 2062 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.640138

Zeqaj v Government of Albania: Admn 20 Feb 2013

Appeal, under section 103 from the decision to send the matter to the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to consider extraditing Zeqaj to Albania to serve a sentence of 23 years in connection with murder and firearms offences.

Judges:

Gross LJ, Gloster DBE J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 261 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 103

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.471058

Louca v Public Prosecutor In Bielefel, Germany: Admn 27 Nov 2008

The defendant objected to the extradition order, saying that the European arrest warrant relied on did not disclose other warrants issued for the same offences.
Held: The Act required the warrant to be validated by the issuing national court. It was not required that it include reference to earlier warrants. The Act should be read to comply with the Framework decision. The case of Jaso should not be followed.

Judges:

Dyson LJ, Pitchford J, Gross J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 2907 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii, Times

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 2, Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (OJ 2002 No L190/1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Incorrectly decided – Jaso and others v Central Criminal Court No.2 Madrid Admn 14-Dec-2007
The Madrid Court had issued European Arrest Warrants against the three appellants on charges of membership of a criminal organisation and terrorism. The appellants had unsuccessfully challenged extradition before the District Judge on a large number . .

Cited by:

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

Extradition, European

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.278306

Regina v Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate Ex parte Lee: QBD 3 Mar 1993

An Extradition Court cannot request evidence from applicant country.

Judges:

Watkins LJ, Ognall J

Citations:

Independent 03-Mar-1993, [1993] EWHC Admin 6, [1993] 1 WLR 1294

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 7 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Practice, Extradition

Updated: 21 July 2022; Ref: scu.87325

Caldarelli v The Court of Naples: Admn 12 Jul 2007

The court certified a point of law for the House of Lords as follows: ‘Where a fugitive has been convicted and sentenced in his absence in the requesting state, but the conviction and sentence are neither final nor enforceable, may his case be treated as an accusation case even though he does not enjoy an unqualified right to a retrial on the merits?’

Judges:

Laws LJ, Tomlinson J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1624 (QB), [2007] EWHC 1624 (Admin), [2008] 1 WLR 31

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 26

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – La Torre v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 14-Jul-2006
The applicant resisted his extradition to Italy, saying that the provisions of Part 2 of the 2003 Act were engaged because the case started life before Italy ratified the Framework Decision and so adopted the EAW system. La Torre had been found . .

Cited by:

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

Extradition

Updated: 18 July 2022; Ref: scu.271163

RO (Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – European arrest warrant – Judgment): ECJ 19 Sep 2018

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Grounds for non-execution – Article 50 TEU – Warrant issued by the judicial authorities of a Member State that has initiated the procedure for withdrawal from the European Union – Uncertainty as to the law applicable to the relationship between that State and the Union following withdrawal

Citations:

[2018] WLR(D) 586, [2018] EUECJ C-327/18PPU, CLI:EU:C:2018:733

Links:

WLRD, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Extradition

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.631175

Zakowski v Regional Court In Szczecin, Poland: Admn 16 May 2008

Maurice Kay LJ said that section 2(6)(c) of the 2003 Act ‘should be construed as referring only to other EAWs issued in respect of the offence.’

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ, Penry-Davey J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1389 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 2(6)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Extradition

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270374

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 be that he will be found unfit. But even in those circumstances there may be countervailing considerations. For example, if there is the counterpart of our process in the other country, where a person may be found to have committed an act which would otherwise have been a serious crime, particularly if it were to be a crime of violence involving risk to the public, and if it would then be appropriate to detain the person for medical treatment, it would be in the public interest to enable that process to take place.’

Judges:

Hale LJ

Citations:

[2003] EWHC 1177 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Extradition

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.185595

Moulai v Deputy Public Prosecutor In Creteil France: Admn 9 May 2008

The court was asked ‘Whether it is a fatal bar to an appeal against an order extraditing (or not extraditing) a person, that a copy of the duly filed appeal notice was served on the respondent a few minutes late?’
Held: The failure to serve an appeal notice in time was not fatal to an appeal against an extradition order.

Judges:

Hooper LJ, Maddison J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1024 (Admin), Times 02-Jun-2008

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267661

Gercans v The Government of Latvia: Admn 27 Feb 2008

The court was asked whether there was jurisdiction in High court to hear an appeal under section 26(4) against extradition order.

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 884 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 26(4)

Citing:

Applied – Vilnius City, the District Court of v Barcys Admn 22-Mar-2007
The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to apply the Rules to extend time to appeal against discharge of an extradition request. The notice of appeal was not filed (or served) within seven days.
Held: Latham LJ said: ‘I acknowledge . .

Cited by:

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

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267404

Ogonowski v District Court of Bialystok, Poland: Admn 2007

Judges:

Richards LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2445 (Admin)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Krzyzowski v Circuit Court In Gliwice, Poland Admn 23-Nov-2007
Extradition of the defendant to Poland was sought, the court saying he had fled his trial for burglaries in 1999. The defendant argued that his extradition would now be unfair.
Held: The judge was right to hold that his ruling of deliberate . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.261508

Fofana, Belise v Deputy Prosecutor Thubin, Tribunal De Grande Instance De Meaux, France: QBD 5 Apr 2006

When considering whether an offence was disclosed in an extradition application, what matters is the nature of the conduct described in the extradition request or warrant; the ‘charge’ has no formal status in the extradition proceedings. It is an informal document, normally drafted by counsel for the state seeking extradition, the sole purpose of which is to illustrate for the court the conduct described in the warrant so as to identify it as an extradition offence.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld Mr Justice Sullivan

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 744 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Raissi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 22-Feb-2007
The claimant sought judicial review of a refusal to make an ex gratia payment for his imprisonment whilst successfully resisting extradition proceedings. Terrorist connections had been suggested, but the judge made an explicit finding that at no . .
Cited – Raissi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 22-Feb-2007
The claimant sought judicial review of a refusal to make an ex gratia payment for his imprisonment whilst successfully resisting extradition proceedings. Terrorist connections had been suggested, but the judge made an explicit finding that at no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.242003

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 inadmissible against a co-accused in the extraditing country, Spain.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘The question whether there is a case to answer on the conduct that is alleged in the European arrest warrant is not one that can be examined in the requested state. An inquiry into that question is contrary to the principle of mutual recognition on which the Framework Decision is founded. ‘ The difficulty may not have arisen if the applicant had resticted the warrant to the matters required to be included. One feature among the provisions for appeals in the 2003 Act is that not every decision that the judge is required to take can be appealed under the statute.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury

Citations:

[2008] UKHL 3, [2008] AC 805, [2008] 2 WLR 299, [2008] 2 All ER 207, [2008] 2 CMLR 8

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council of the European Union Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States 8(1), Extradition Act 2003c

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – 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
. .
Cited – Office of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and others HL 17-Nov-2005
The defendant resisted extradition to Brussels saying that the offence had been committed in part in England. He had absconded and been convicted. Application was made for his return to serve his sentence. The offences associated with organisation . .
Cited – Dabas v High Court of Justice, Madrid HL 28-Feb-2007
The defendant sought to appeal his extradition to Spain to face terrorism charges. He complained that the certificate required under the 2003 Act could not be the European arrest warrant itself, that the offence did not satisfy the double . .
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. . .
See Also – Hilali v Central Court of Criminal Proceedings Number 5 and Another Admn 16-Nov-2006
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Pilecki v Circuit Court of Legnica, Poland HL 6-Feb-2008
The defendant appealed against an extradition order made under a European Arrest Warrant to ensure that he served a sentence of imprisonment in Poland. The warrant was in respect of several sentences, some of which were for more and some for less . .
Cited – 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 . .
See Also – Hilali, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 25-Nov-2008
. .
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.

Extradition

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264023

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department, ex parte Christian Norgren: Admn 18 Feb 2000

The extradition of the defendant was requested by the US for breaches of insider dealing legislation. He claimed the issue of the order by the Home Secretary claiming it was not an extradition crime since at the time, the English equivalent offence related only to dealing on the Stock Exchange in London.
Held: The decision in issue would be that of the magistrate, not the Home Secretary. The notice was correct on its face and should stand.

Judges:

Lord Bingham CJ, Klevan J

Citations:

Gazette 16-Mar-2000, [2000] EWHC QB 143, [2000] EWHC Admin 296, [2000] 3 WLR 181, [2000] QB 817

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989, Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Norris v United States of America and others HL 12-Mar-2008
The detainee appealed an order for extradition to the USA, saying that the offence (price-fixing) was not one known to English common law. The USA sought his extradition under the provisions of the Sherman Act.
Held: It was not, and it would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Financial Services, Extradition, Crime

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.140110

Blaj and Others v Court of Alesd, Romania and Others: Admn 17 Jun 2015

Whether extradition of the three appellants to Romania pursuant to European Arrest Warrants would be contrary to their rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights because of the conditions in prisons in Romania.

Judges:

Lord Justice Aikens

Citations:

[2015] EWHC 1710 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.549106

Jaso and others v Central Criminal Court No.2 Madrid: Admn 14 Dec 2007

The Madrid Court had issued European Arrest Warrants against the three appellants on charges of membership of a criminal organisation and terrorism. The appellants had unsuccessfully challenged extradition before the District Judge on a large number of grounds. These included the contention that extradition would violate articles 3, 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention. The appellants said that, if extradited, they would be subject to incommunicado police detention for up to 5 days. The District Judge had applied an exceptionality test and this was attacked.
Held: Dyson LJ applied Huang, and said that there was no exceptionality test, though: ‘It is clear that great weight should be accorded to the legitimate aim of honouring extradition treaties made with other states. Thus, although it is wrong to apply an exceptionality test, in an extradition case there will have to be striking and unusual facts to lead to the conclusion that it is disproportionate to interfere with an extraditee’s article 8 rights.’

Judges:

Dyson LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2983 (Admin), [2008] 1 WLR 2798

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 21(3), European Convention on Human Rights 3 5 6 8

Citing:

Applied – Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .

Cited by:

Incorrectly decided – Louca v Public Prosecutor In Bielefel, Germany Admn 27-Nov-2008
The defendant objected to the extradition order, saying that the European arrest warrant relied on did not disclose other warrants issued for the same offences.
Held: The Act required the warrant to be validated by the issuing national court. . .
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 – 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: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262174

Mucelli v Albania and Another: Admn 15 Nov 2007

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 2632 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 18-Jan-2008
. .
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: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261394

Edwards v Government of United States of America: Admn 31 Jul 2007

Sedley LJ discussed and rejected the argument that ‘the analogue of the warrant is the request’ in extradition procedure and said: ‘Here, as in Dabas, the question is what is ‘the conduct’ which has to amount to an extradition offence? Is it the conduct asserted in the indictment or the conduct recounted as giving rise to it?
Lord Hope said in terms in the last sentence at para 48 of Dabas, it seems to me that the policy and objects of the 2003 Act point clearly towards the former meaning. The Act limits the requisite documentation, albeit leaving it open to requesting states to add more. But if the evaluation of the request is not confined to the required materials, there is no apparent limit to what further documentation can be introduced, and a statutory process designed to be lean and schematic will become expansive and porous . .
I conclude that ‘the conduct’ referred to in section 137 is confined to the facts alleged in ‘the offence specified in the request’, the phrase used in sections 70 and 78. In a normal US case such as the present one this will limit the inquiry into dual criminality to, on the one hand, the indictment and any document incorporated by reference into it and, on the other, the criminal law of England and Wales.’

Judges:

Sedley LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1877 (Admin), [2007] All ER (D) 501 (Jul)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Norris v United States of America and others HL 12-Mar-2008
The detainee appealed an order for extradition to the USA, saying that the offence (price-fixing) was not one known to English common law. The USA sought his extradition under the provisions of the Sherman Act.
Held: It was not, and it would . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258816

Gibson v United States of America: PC 23 Jul 2007

(The Bahamas) The US government sought the extradition of the appellant from the Bahamas on drugs charges. The warrants were found to be void, and the defendant released unconditionally, when the nmagistrate rejected evidence from an admitted co-conspirator. It was then said thet the respondent had no right of appeal against a grant of habeas corpus.
Held: The Board faced three questions; whether the case could be distinguished from the case of Cartwright and Knowles, if not whether the decision in that case was incorrect, and if incorrect whether it must be followed. The cases were not properly distinguishable. The scope of habeas corpus was wide, and ‘It is impossible nowadays to argue that on an application for habeas corpus in extradition proceedings the Court is confined to a review of the formal validity of the detention order and cannot, except by certiorari, enquire into its substantial merits. ‘ The Board therefore considered whether it could depart from its own previous decisions.

Judges:

Lord Woolf, Scott of Foscote L, Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood L, Carswell L, Mance L, Sir Christopher Rose

Citations:

[2007] UKPC 52, Times 21-Aug-2007

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Citing:

Cited – Regina v National Insurance Commissioner, Ex parte Hudson HL 1972
The House considered whether it would have power to make a ruling with prospective effect only. Lord Diplock said the matter deserved further consideration; Lord Simon said that the possibility of prospective overruling should be seriously . .
Cited – Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) HL 1966
The House gave guidance how it would treat an invitation to depart from a previous decision of the House. Such a course was possible, but the direction was not an ‘open sesame’ for a differently constituted committee to prefer their views to those . .
Cited – Armah v Government of Ghana and Another HL 1968
The appellant was committed under 1881 Act to await his return to Ghana to face trial on corruption charges. He applied for a writ of habeas corpus contending inter alia that it would be unjust and oppressive to return him since he would be liable . .
Cited – Samuel Knowles, Junior v United States of America and Another PC 24-Jul-2006
(The Bahamas) The respondent sought the extradition of the appellant to face drugs charges. The appellant said that if extradited, he would not receive a fair trial, having been declared publicly by the US President to be a drugs ‘kingpin’.
Cited – Horton v Sadler and Another HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimant had been injured in a road traffic accident for which the defendant was responsible in negligence. The defendant was not insured, and so a claim was to be made against the MIB. The plaintiff issued proceedings just before the expiry of . .
Cited – Fitzleet Estates Ltd v Cherry HL 9-Nov-1977
Income tax – Schedule D, Cases III and VI – Payments of interest and ground rent incurred when property was being developed – Whether capitalised or paid out of profits or gains brought into charge to tax – Income Tax Act 1952 (15 and 16 Geo. 6 and . .
Overruled – Cartwright and Knowles v The Superintendant of Her Majesty’s Prison and The Government of the United States of America PC 10-Feb-2004
PC (Bahamas) A warrant for extradition had been held to be void, and the prisoners released. It was argued that the US government had no right of appeal.
Held: Section 17(3) of the Court of Appeal Act was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Extradition

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258432

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.

Judges:

Hughes LJ, Treacy J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1770 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 82

Cited by:

See Also – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258430

Ahmad and Aswat v United Kingdom: ECHR 10 Jun 2007

(Statement of Facts) The applicants resisted extradition from the respondent country to the USA to face allegations of terrorist related crime.

Citations:

24027/07, [2007] ECHR 603

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

At Court of Appeal – 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:

See Also – Ahmad And Aswat v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Jul-2007
(Statement of Facts) To resist an extradition application to America to stand trial on various federal charges, the appellants claimed that if they were extradited there was a real prospect that they would be made subject to a determination by the . .
See Also – Ahmad and Aswat v United Kingdom ECHR 6-Jul-2010
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. Recalling that there is no right in the Convention not to be . .
See Also – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Extradition

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.258213

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 decisive, not least in what is otherwise a marginal case (as Lord Woolf indicated in Osman (No 4). And such delay will often be associated with other factors, such as the possibility of a false sense of security on the extraditee’s part. The extraditee cannot take advantage of delay for which he is himself responsible (see Lord Diplock in Kakis at 783). An overall judgment on the merits is required, unshackled by rules with too sharp edges’.

Judges:

Laws LJ, Davis J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1370 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

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 . .
See Also – La Torre v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 14-Jul-2006
The applicant resisted his extradition to Italy, saying that the provisions of Part 2 of the 2003 Act were engaged because the case started life before Italy ratified the Framework Decision and so adopted the EAW system. La Torre had been found . .
See Also – La Torre v The Lord Advocate and Another HCJ 8-Nov-2006
The Lord Advocate had conceded that devolution minutes were competent in proceedings under the 2003 Act. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Krzyzowski v Circuit Court In Gliwice, Poland Admn 23-Nov-2007
Extradition of the defendant to Poland was sought, the court saying he had fled his trial for burglaries in 1999. The defendant argued that his extradition would now be unfair.
Held: The judge was right to hold that his ruling of deliberate . .
Cited – 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 – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.254608

Wellington, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 18 May 2007

In extradition proceedings the accused has no right to disclosure of evidence to the same extent and of the same kind which would be available in domestic proceedings.
Laws LJ said that a prison sentence without chance for parole might infringe the defendant’s human rights: ‘The abolition of the death penalty has been lauded, and justified, in many ways; but it must have been founded at least on the premise that the life of every person, however depraved, has an inalienable value. The destruction of a life may be accepted in some special circumstances, such as self-defence or just war, but retributive punishment is never enough to justify it. Yet a prisoner’s incarceration without hope of release is in many respects in like case to a sentence of death. He can never atone for his offence. However he may use his incarceration as time for amendment of life, his punishment is only exhausted by his last breath. Like the death sentence the whole-life tariff is lex talionis. But its notional or actual symmetry with the crime for which it is visited on the prisoner (the only virtue of the lex talionis) is a poor guarantee of proportionate punishment, for the whole-life tariff is arbitrary: it may be measured in days or decades according to how long the prisoner has to live. It is therefore liable to be disproportionate – the very vice which is condemned on article 3 grounds – unless, of course, the death penalty’s logic applies: the crime is so heinous it can never be atoned for. But in that case the supposed inalienable value of the prisoner’s life is reduced, merely, to his survival: to nothing more than his drawing breath and being kept, no doubt, confined in decent circumstances. That is to pay lip service to the value of life; not to vouchsafe it . . a prisoner’s incarceration without hope of release is in many respects in like case to a sentence of death. He can never atone for his offence. However he may use incarceration as time for amendment of life, his punishment is only exhausted by his last breath . . The supposed inalienable value of the prisoner’s life is reduced, merely to his survival: to nothing more than his drawing breath and being kept, no doubt, confined in decent circumstances. That is to pay lip-service to the value of life; not to vouchsafe it’.

Judges:

Laws LJ and Davis J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 1109 (Admin), [2008] 3 All ER 248

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003

Cited by:

Cited – Norris v United States of America and others HL 12-Mar-2008
The detainee appealed an order for extradition to the USA, saying that the offence (price-fixing) was not one known to English common law. The USA sought his extradition under the provisions of the Sherman Act.
Held: It was not, and it would . .
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 . .
Approved – De Boucherville v The State of Mauritius PC 9-Jul-2008
(Mauritius) The board was asked to consider the constutionality of the term of imprisonment being served by the prisoner. . .
Cited – Oakes and Others v Regina CACD 21-Nov-2012
A specially constituted CACD heard sentencing appeals for defendants serving life terms for very grave crimes, and in particular, the judicial assessment of the minimum term to be served by the appellants for the purposes of punishment and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Criminal Sentencing, Human Rights

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.253305