Category: Extradition

HMP Wandsworth, Governor of v Kinderis: Admn 3 May 2007

The defendant had been subject to an application for extradition to Lithuania. He had consented to the extradition and was in custody awaiting the transfer. At the same time he awaited trial in the Crown Court, and the judge had ordered his detention pending the trial.
Held: There appeared to be conflicting orders. In this case the governor was not required to deliver the prisoner to the crown court, but instead only to answer to the order when it came surrendering him for extradition.

Judges:

Laws LJ, Beason J

Citations:

[2007] EWHC 998 (Admin), Times 03-May-2007

Links:

Bailii

Extradition, Prisons

Updated: 11 July 2022; Ref: scu.251805

Regina v Seddon: CACD 10 Mar 2009

The court considered the concept of specialty with extradition proceedings. Hughes LJ VP said: ‘Extradition is a process involving agreement between Sovereign States. The requesting State has no power to send its policemen into the requested State to arrest a prisoner who has run away there. That would be a direct infringement of the sovereignty of the requested State. So the requesting State depends upon the voluntary co-operation of the State where the fugitive is now to be found. Unsurprisingly States found that they generally had a common interest in A surrendering prisoners to B if B asked, providing that B entered into a reciprocal agreement to surrender those whom A wanted when the boot was on the other foot. On the other hand, States generally wished to retain the power to refuse to surrender in some circumstances. To take simple but non-exhaustive examples, they might wish to refuse if the conduct complained of was not a crime in the requested State, or if it was, for example, a crime of a political character where the interests of the two States diverged.
Historically, extradition was generally achieved through separate bilateral treaties between States. Commonly the power of the requested State to refuse extradition in some circumstances was preserved by the terms of such treaties. To give effect to that practice, the principle evolved that if A requested a prisoner from B, A would identify the offence for which the prisoner was wanted, so that B could decide whether there was a sufficient reason to refuse to surrender him. With that went the practice that if surrendered the prisoner could only be dealt with for the offence for which he had been sought, otherwise plainly the surrendering State’s power to refuse would be circumvented. That principle is called specialty . . The rationale for it may owe something to the protection of the individual, but it plainly lies principally in the international obligation between States. ‘

Judges:

Hughes LJ VP, King J, Gordon HHJ

Citations:

[2009] EWCA Crim 483, [2009] 2 Cr App R 9, [2009] 1 WLR 2342

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Kenny v Regina CACD 30-Jan-2013
The appellant had made a loan to a third party defendant in criminal fraud proceedings. At the time he did not know that that third party was subject to a restraint order under the 2002 Act. When he did come to know of the order he was asked to say . .
Cited – Regina v O’Brien SC 2-Apr-2014
The court considered how to apply the rule that an extradition may only be for trial on matters committed before the extradition if they have been the basis of the request to a defendant’s commission of contempt of court after conviction. After . .
Followed – Hey v Regina CACD 2010
. .
Followed – Regina v Birch CACD 2015
. .
Cited – Shepherd v Regina CACD 20-Jun-2019
Not unfair to admit statement whilst not a suspect
The defendant was in charge of a boat on the Thames. He was intoxicated as was his girlfriend. He was speeding, and allowed her to take the controls. She crashed the boat and died from her injuries. He absconded from bail, and was convicted of gross . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Extradition

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.324719

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.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clerk And Lord Macfadyen And Lord Nimmo Smith

Citations:

[2006] ScotHC HCJA – 81, 2008 JC 23

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

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 . .

Cited by:

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 . .
See Also – 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 – 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: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249532

Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Sinclair; Sinclair v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 1991

The applicant had left the USA after conviction, but before his prison term commenced, and a warrant issued. Nine years later he was arrested in the UK, and extradition sought. He said that the extradition was time-barred under the Order. The magistrates, and divisional court rejected the argument saying his claim was an abuse of process.
Held: A magistrate hearing an extradition application had no power to determine an abuse of process application, his powers being limited to those set out in the Act. The article in the Order referred only to the commencement of a criminal prosecution, and did not refer to later stages of a prosecution which had itself been timeous. About 11(3) of the 1989 Act, ‘By this section a radical alteration has been made by giving to the High Court, in part at least, the same kind of discretion as to whether or not to discharge an applicant as the Secretary of State has in deciding whether or not to order a fugitive criminal to be returned to a requesting state. ‘

Judges:

Lord Ackner

Citations:

[1991] 2 AC 64, [1991] 2 All ER 366, [1991] CLY 1750

Statutes:

United States of America Extradition Order 1976 Av(1)(b), Extradition Act 1870 3 8 9 10, Extradition Act 1989 11(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Atkinson v Government of the United States HL 1969
The House heard an appeal from the magistrates’ refusal to commit the accused in the course of extradition proceedings.
Held: There is no abuse of process jurisdiction in extradition proceedings. There is no power to state a case in relation . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina (Kashamu) v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another; Regina (Kashamu) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court; Regina (Makhlulif and Another) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court QBD 23-Nov-2001
Where a magistrates’ court heard an application for extradition, it was within its proper ambit to assess the lawfulness of the detention of the suspect in the light of the Human Rights Convention, but not to stray onto issues which were only for . .
Re-affirmed – Regina (Warda) v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another QBD 13-Feb-2002
When making an extradition order, the court did not have to consider each provision of the Act. Parliament did not intend for it to be part of the function of the district judge to occupy his time deciding whether the many and varied treaty . .
Cited – 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 – RB (Algeria) and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department; OO (Jordan) v Same; MT (Algeria) v Same HL 18-Feb-2009
Fairness of SIAC procedures
Each defendant was to be deported for fear of involvement in terrorist activities, but feared that if returned to their home countries, they would be tortured. The respondent had obtained re-assurances from the destination governments that this . .
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, Magistrates

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.182206

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.

Citations:

Times 29-Oct-1996, [1996] EWHC Admin 60

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Sinclair; Sinclair v Director of Public Prosecutions HL 1991
The applicant had left the USA after conviction, but before his prison term commenced, and a warrant issued. Nine years later he was arrested in the UK, and extradition sought. He said that the extradition was time-barred under the Order. The . .
Cited – In Re Schmidt HL 1-Jul-1994
The appellant sought to persuade the House that in extradition proceedings the courts enjoyed a similar jurisdiction to that exercised in Bennett.
Held: The appeal failed. The High Court has no inherent power to intervene in extradition . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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
. .
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, Judicial Review

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.136608

Migliorelli v Government of Italy: QBD 28 Jul 2000

The Government of Italy sought the return of a fugitive who had been tried and convicted in his absence. The issue was whether the warrant should have been issued against the fugitive as a convicted person and not, as it had, as an accused person.
Held: The warrant had been correctly issued since the trial process had not yet come to an end. Judge LJ said that the process in Italy was incomplete not only in relation to sentence but also conviction.

Judges:

Judge LJ, Morison J

Citations:

[2000] EWHC 558 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Extradition

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.263148

Slator v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court, High Court of Dublin (Interested Party ): Admn 4 Oct 2006

Application was made for the prisoner to be extradited whilst he served his prison sentence here. The application had been made early in the prisoner’s nine year term, intending that it should then be adjourned until a point close to te completion of the sentence. The district judge rejected the request.
Held: The statute required a defendant to be extradited within ten days of an order. Such a delay would necessitate a delay in the hearing which would infringe the prisoner’s right to a speedy trial of the extradition aplication.

Judges:

Lord Justice Auld Mr Justice Wilkie

Citations:

Times 25-Oct-2006, [2006] EWHC 2628 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 11 22

Citing:

Cited – Nikonovs v HM Prison Brixton and Republic of Latvia Admn 2-Nov-2005
The defendant argued that a failure to observe procedures under the Act resulted in his detention being unlawful and therefore susceptible to judicial review. He had not been brought before the appropriate court as soon as practicable after his . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.247327

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 express his satisfaction over matters under section 11 and section 21 in respect of the ultimate extradition of a person which cannot take place for in excess of three years, then it is simply irrational for him to consider that he could properly do so at that distance in time. The matter was remitted with an order for the district judge to consider the question of extradition at te approriate time.

Judges:

Lord Phillips CJ, Wilkie J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2256 (Admin), [2007] 1 WLR 1157

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003

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 . .
Cited – Nikonovs v HM Prison Brixton and Republic of Latvia Admn 2-Nov-2005
The defendant argued that a failure to observe procedures under the Act resulted in his detention being unlawful and therefore susceptible to judicial review. He had not been brought before the appropriate court as soon as practicable after his . .

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 . .
Cited – McKinnon v The United States of America and Anotherr HL 30-Jul-2008
The appellant sought to avoid extradition to the US. He had hacked into 97 US government computers. He argued that the punishment he might expect in the US was completely disproportionate to the offence, and that he had been misled into entering . .
Cited – Guardian News and Media Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Another CA 25-Oct-2011
The claimant newspaper sought to appeal against a refusal by the respondent to disclose papers filed in a case before it. The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal.
Held: Under the 1981 Act no appeal would lie if the . .
See Also – Government of the United States of America v Tollman and Another Admn 7-Feb-2008
. .
Cited – VB and Others v Westminster Magistrates SC 5-Nov-2014
Extraditions to follow normal open justice rules
Application was made by Rwanda for the extradition of four individuals to face crimes said to have been committed during their civil war. Witnesses were prepared to give evidence but only in private and not being seen by the representatives of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244862

Mitoi v Government of Romania: Admn 7 Jun 2006

Where a question arises, under section 20(3) or 85(3) of the Act, as to whether a person deliberately absented himself from his trial, that is a matter which the requesting state has to prove to a criminal standard.

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1977 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 20(3) 85(3)

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: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244236

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 guilty of extradition crimes in Italy and sentenced, but this first instance process was not final in the eye of Italian law.
Held: The section distinguished between an accused person and a person alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction. Since it is agreed that the accused is not alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction, it follows, in our view, that he has to be categorised as an accused person within the meaning of section 70(4)(a). The key consideration is the fact that the accused’s sentence is still subject to appeal and his conviction cannot be said to be final.

Judges:

Lord Justice Clerk And Lord Macfadyen And Lord Nimmo Smith

Citations:

[2006] ScotHC HCJAC – 56, 2008 JC 23, [2007] Eu LR 70, 2006 GWD 31-667, 2006 SCCR 503, 2006 SLT 989

Links:

ScotC, Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003

Cited by:

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

Scotland, Crime, Extradition

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244044

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’.
Held: It was wrong to suggest that the role of the Supreme Court on an application for habeas corpus in criminal proceedings (such as extradition) is to review the formal validity of an order for detention and not enquire into its substantial merits, but as the law applied at the time, there was no appeal for a prosecutor against the grant of habeas corpus.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell

Citations:

[2006] UKPC 38, [2007] 1 WLR 47

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – 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 . .
Cited – Cox v Hakes HL 5-Aug-1890
No Appeal from Order granting Habeas Corpus
Where a person has been discharged from custody by an order of the High Court under a habeas corpus the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal.
So held by Lord Halsbury L.C. and Lords Watson, Bramwell, Herschell, and . .
See Also – Knowles and others v Superintendent of HM Prison Fox Hill and others PC 23-Mar-2005
(Bahamas) The claimants resisted requests for their extradition to the US on drugs charges. . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Raissi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 14-Feb-2008
The claimant appealed against refusal of his request for judicial review of the defendant’s decision not to award him damages after his wrongful arrest and detention after he was wrongly suspected of involvement in terrorism. He had been discharged . .
Cited – Gomes v Trinidad and Tobago HL 29-Apr-2009
Each appellant challenged orders for their extradition, saying that the delay had been too prolonged, and that detention in Trinidad’s appalling jails would be an infringement of their human rights.
Held: The House had to consider its own . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Extradition

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243387

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 plain and ordinary meaning. The sub-section requires the warrant to obtain particulars of the circumstances in which the person is alleged to have committed the offence. These particulars must include four elements: (1) the conduct alleged to constitute the offence; (2) the time and (3) the place at which he is alleged to have committed the offence; and (4) any provision of law under which the conduct is alleged to constitute an offence. ‘ This warrant failed to meet these standards, and was defective.

Judges:

Dyson LJ, Walker J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1672 (Admin), Times 10-Jul-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 21(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 – Vey v The Office of the Public Prosecutor of the County Court of Montlucon, France Admn 7-Apr-2006
. .
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 – Palar v Court of First Instance Brussels Admn 15-Apr-2005
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Von Der Pahlen v Leoben High Court, Austria Admn 4-Mar-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243312

Goatley v Her Majesty’s Advocate and Another: HCJ 12 Jul 2006

Judges:

Lord Kingarth And Lord Mcewan And Lord Nimmo Smith

Citations:

[2006] ScotHC HCJAC – 55, 2007 SLT 14, 2008 JC 1, 2006 SCCR 463, 2006 GWD 33-690, [2006] HCJAC 55, [2007] Eu LR 42

Links:

ScotC, Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 26(1)

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Appeal from – Goatley, Re European Arrest Warrant ScSf 28-Mar-2006
. .

Cited by:

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 – Bucnys v Ministry of Justice SC 20-Nov-2013
The Court considered requests made by European Arrest Warrants for the surrender under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 of three persons wanted to serve sentences imposed upon their conviction in other member states of the European Union. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243197

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 diplomatic or legal professional prvilege. It was also disputed whether the 1989 or the 2003 Act applied.
Held: The decisions of the District judge were not to be taken together as one decision, but ‘It was the intention of the 2003 Act that the issues in extradition proceedings be resolved speedily and multiple hearings be avoided.’ The applications by the USA were allowed in order to promte the speedy resolution of the outstanding issues.

Judges:

Thomas LJ, Silber J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1400 (Admin), Times 19-Sep-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003, Extradition Act 1989

Cited by:

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 . .
See Also – Government of the United States of America v Tollman and Another Admn 7-Feb-2008
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242561

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.

Judges:

Scott Baker LJ, Openshaw J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1239 (Admin), [2007] 1 WLR 768

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003

Cited by:

See Also – Hilali v Central Court of Criminal Proceedings Number 5 and Another Admn 16-Nov-2006
. .
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 . .
Cited – VB and Others v Westminster Magistrates SC 5-Nov-2014
Extraditions to follow normal open justice rules
Application was made by Rwanda for the extradition of four individuals to face crimes said to have been committed during their civil war. Witnesses were prepared to give evidence but only in private and not being seen by the representatives of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.242222

Dabas v The High Court of Justice Madrid Spain: Admn 4 May 2006

The defendant complained that the European arrest warrant under which he was held was not effective since it did not certify or specify an extradictable offence.
Held: Provided the relevant material required by the statute was clearly set out in the warrant, that part of the warrant could be treated as a certificate so as to satisfy the section.

Judges:

Lord Justice Latham, Mr Justice Jack

Citations:

Times 02-Jun-2006, [2006] EWHC 971 (Admin), [2007] 1 WLR 145

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Extradition

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241453

Government of Canada v Aronson; Director of Public Prosecutions v Aronson: HL 20 Jul 1989

The Canadian Government asked for the arrest of the defendant and for his return to Canada to face 78 allegations in Canada. The magistrate had determined that there was sufficient evidence in 66 cases. The detainee said that 69 offences were not ‘relevant offences’ within the Act.
Held: The allegations did not disclose relevant offences, and the magistrate’s order should be quashed. It was inappropriate for a magistrate to hear evidence to determine whether the extradite would face criminal charges for similar offences here.
Lord Lowry said: ‘The ‘act or omission constituting the offence’ cannot in my opinion mean ‘the conduct, as proved by evidence, on which the charge is grounded,’ because the evidence of such conduct could prove something more than what has been charged. In such a case the conduct proved would not be the act or omission constituting the offence of which the fugitive is accused in the Commonwealth country . . One may paraphrase the effect of section 3(1)(c) by asking: ‘what is the essence of the Commonwealth offence? And would that be an offence against the law of the United Kingdom?’ That is quite a different thing from looking at the course of conduct revealed by the evidence and asking whether that conduct (as distinct from the conduct of which the person is accused) would constitute an offence against the law of the United Kingdom.’
Lord Bridge of Harwich considered what would happen if the test was, not as he though, constructive: ‘The issue arises when the Commonwealth offence may be established by particularising and proving ingredients A, B and C, but the nearest corresponding United Kingdom offence requires that the prosecution prove ingredients A, B, C and D. It is submitted for the Government of Canada . . . that if, in a particular case, the evidence relied on to prove the Commonwealth offence would be sufficient, if accepted, to establish ingredient D in addition to ingredients A, B and C, this is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 3(1)(c). Whether the extra ingredient necessary to prove the United Kingdom offence, over and above the ingredients which constitute the Commonwealth offence, is a physical or mental element, the wide construction leads to startling results. Two men are accused of the identical Commonwealth offence particularised against them in identical terms. The committing magistrate must decide whether the offence with which each is charged is a ‘relevant offence’: section 7(5). If the evidence establishes ingredients A, B and C against both men but ingredient D against the first man only, the magistrate must commit the first man, but not the second, to custody to await his return to the designated Commonwealth country. Yet so much of the evidence that is relied on to establish ingredient D . . . will be irrelevant to his trial for the Commonwealth offence after his return.’

Judges:

Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Elwyn-Janes, Lord Griffiths, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Lowry

Citations:

[1990] 1 AC 579, [1989] 3 WLR 436, [1989] 2 All ER 1025, (1990) 90 Cr App R 199, [1989] UKHL 6, [1990] COD 27

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Fugitive Offenders Act 1967

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Bermingham and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office QBD 21-Feb-2006
Prosecution to protect defendant not available
The claimants faced extradition to the US. They said that the respondent had infringed their human rights by deciding not to prosecute them in the UK. There was no mutuality in the Act under which they were to be extradited.
Held: The Director . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex Parte Admn 3-Mar-1997
The section imposed the conduct test as set out in Nielsen, not the narrower approach adopted in Aronson. . .
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: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240087

Welsh and Thrasher v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another: Admn 21 Feb 2006

Ouseley J: ‘First, if there had been a routine disregard of the specialty rule, I would have expected that over the decades of extradition to the US from the UK, and in particular from those countries with which the US enjoys a land frontier, the UK Courts and the Courts of other sending states would have refused extradition in decisions which would be available to us. The 1972 and 2003 Treaties would not have been agreed in the terms on which they were agreed.’

Judges:

Ouseley J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 156 (Admin), [2006] 3 All ER 204

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Cited by:

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

Extradition

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238664

Mariotti v Government of Italy and others: Admn 2 Dec 2005

The extraditee had been convicted in his absence in Italy having fled to avoid the trial. He complained that the trial process had been unfair and the evidence against him weak.
Held: The court’s duty was not to investigate the evidential basis of a decision made by a competent foreign court. The application was dismissed.

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ, Penry Davey J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2745 (Admin), Times 13-Jan-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 6(2) 11(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v In the Matter of an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum Governor of HM Prison Brixton, ex parte Barone Admn 7-Nov-1997
The defendant had been convicted in his absence by a court in Turin and in respect of whom there was uncontradicted evidence before their lordships that if he were returned to that jurisdiction he would, under the relevant Italian procedures, be . .
Cited – Regina v Jones (Anthony William) HL 20-Feb-2002
The defendant absconded, and did not appear for his trial despite several listings. The trial proceeded in his absence entirely. After arrest, he appealed, saying that he had not had a fair trial.
Held: It was not suggested that he did not . .
Cited – Regina v John Victor Hayward, Anthony William Jones, Paul Nigel Purvis CACD 31-Jan-2001
A defendant can forego his right to attend his trial, but he still had the general right to be present, and to have legal representation at the trial. The court’s discretion to proceed in his absence should only be exercised with great care. A trial . .
Cited – Regina v Powell (Anthony) and Another; Regina v English HL 30-Oct-1997
When the court looked at the issue of foreseeability of murder in an allegation of joint enterprise, there was no requirement to show intent by the secondary party. The forseeability of the risk of the principal committing the offence from the point . .
Cited – Spinnato, Re v Governor of HM Prison Brixton and Another Admn 20-Dec-2001
The prisoner had been convicted in his absence in 1991 of offences in Italy. He was resident in England at the time, and many years later extradition was sought. He had not hidden his whereabouts, and the Italian State seemed not to have pursued . .
Cited – Urru v Governor of HM Prison, Brixton 22-May-2000
The prisoner resisted his extradition to Italy. The court examined documentation received from Italy: ‘That language may indicate that the applicant is already regarded as unlawfully at large and therefore liable to arrest which, if so, would of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235539

Nikonovs v HM Prison Brixton and Republic of Latvia: Admn 2 Nov 2005

The defendant argued that a failure to observe procedures under the Act resulted in his detention being unlawful and therefore susceptible to judicial review. He had not been brought before the appropriate court as soon as practicable after his arrest, pursuant to section 4(3) of the 2003 Act, but the district judge had refused to discharge the applicant pursuant to section 4(5).
Held: Section 34 provides that a decision of the judge can only be questioned in by way of appeal under the Act. However, there is no statutory appeal against preliminary decisions of the district judge, only against the decision to extradite.
In the absence of a statutory right of appeal, the court might consider and grant habeas corpus, but in this case the continued detention was unlawful. The application for a writ of habeas corpus was granted because the applicant satisfied the court that he had not been brought before a judge as soon as practicable and that the judge’s decision not to discharge him was unreasonable. It would require the strongest words in a provision such as section 34 to remove the ancient remedy of habeas corpus where the applicant was able to satisfy the court that he had not been brought before a judge as soon as practicable for the purposes of section 4(5), a decision under which is not appealable.

Judges:

Scott Baker LJ

Citations:

[2006] 1 WLR 1518, [2005] EWHC 2405 (Admin), CO/7767/2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Slator v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court, High Court of Dublin (Interested Party ) Admn 4-Oct-2006
Application was made for the prisoner to be extradited whilst he served his prison sentence here. The application had been made early in the prisoner’s nine year term, intending that it should then be adjourned until a point close to te completion . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235203

Criminal proceedings against Pupino: ECJ 16 Jun 2005

ECJ (Grand Chamber) Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Articles 34 EU and 35 EU – Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA – Standing of victims in criminal proceedings – Protection of vulnerable persons – Hearing of minors as witnesses – Effects of a framework decision.
‘When applying the national law, the national court that is called on to interpret it must do so as far as possible in the light of the wording and purpose of the framework decision in order to attain the result which it pursues and thus comply with article 34.2(b) EU.’

Citations:

C-105/03, [2005] EUECJ C-105/03, Times 14-Jul-2005, [2006] QB 83

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

Cited – Dabas v High Court of Justice, Madrid HL 28-Feb-2007
The defendant sought to appeal his extradition to Spain to face terrorism charges. He complained that the certificate required under the 2003 Act could not be the European arrest warrant itself, that the offence did not satisfy the double . .
Cited – 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 – 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 – 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 – Regina v Magro CACD 8-Jul-2010
Each defendant appealed against confiscation orders made when the sentence imposed was an absolute or conditional discharge. They said that Clarke made such orders unlawful.
Held: The decision in Clarke was a difficult limitation on the . .
Cited – Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority SC 30-May-2012
The defendant sought to resist his extradition under a European Arrest Warrant to Sweden to face charges of sexual assaults. He said that the prosecutor who sought the extradition was not a judicial authority within the Framework Decision.
Cited – French v Public Prosecutor of The Central Department of Investigation and Prosecution In Lisbon Portugal PC 13-Jun-2013
(Gibraltar) Mr French appealed against refusal of his request to have set aside an order for his extradition under a European Arrest Warrant. He argued that (in general) the court had failed to deal with the matter within the mandatory time limits. . .
Cited – Goluchowski and SAS v District Court and Circuit Court In Poland SC 29-Jun-2016
The appellants challenged the effectiveness of European Arrest Warrants, saying that the requests were deficient in not providing adequate details of warrants issued in support of the decisions. They had been convicted and sentenced to terms of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Police, Extradition

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.226968

Wright v The Scottish Ministers: SCS 27 May 2005

The Lord Ordinary said: ‘Extradition does not and should not depend upon the ability or otherwise of the requested state to undertake its own investigations with a view to prosecuting the case within its own jurisdiction. Such an approach would involve unnecessary duplication of effort, would result in additional delays in the prosecution of suspected criminals and would have an adverse effect upon international relations and international co-operation in the prosecution of serious crime. In most, if not all, extradition cases the requested state would depend upon co-operation from the requesting state if the requested state were to embark upon its own investigation and ultimate prosecution of the case.’

Citations:

[2005] ScotCS CSIH – 40

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

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

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225342

Jenkins v United States of America; Benbow v United States of America: Admn 25 May 2005

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1051 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

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: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225269

Demiray v HM Prison Holloway: Admn 28 Jan 2005

Application firstly for an adjournment of the application for habeas corpus and for an application for a writ of habeas corpus. It appeared that this applicant, a Turkish Cypriot, was represented when he lodged a claim challenging his detention pursuant to an order for committal on conditional bail by Bow Street Magistrates’ Court on 10 May 2004, awaiting the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department in response to a request for extradition by the Government of Turkey.

Judges:

Moses LJ, Richards J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 109 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222720

Carlyle-Clarke v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 26 Nov 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2858 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Lancashire County Council ex parte Huddleston CA 1986
The respondent council had failed to allocate a university student grant to the claimant and the principle was directed at the duty of that authority to state clearly the reasons for its refusal and the particular factors that had been taken into . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220531

United States of America v Naseer: Misc 21 Jan 2011

(City of Westminster Magistrates Court) Extradition request-terrorism offences: Issue: ‘refoulement’ i.e. absent any assurance come acquittal or concluded sentence there will not be onward removal to Pakistan without due process by US Courts and there subject to torture

Judges:

Purdy J

Citations:

[2011] EW Misc 4 (MC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 87(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.430060

Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Narang; Union of India v Narang: HL 1978

The House considered an extradition request.
Held: Lord Keith of Kinkel said it would be sufficient to establish the primary facts on the balance of probabilities and for the court to form an opinion upon the facts established. It was submitted that it would be unjust or oppressive to return the applicant because of the circumstances in which he came to be charged in India and the conduct of the Indian authorities in the extradition process both in India and the United Kingdom.
>The task for the court is to consider all the materials before it and then to decide whether or not the inference is to be drawn that return would be unjust or oppressive.
The words ‘having regard to all the circumstances’ enjoin the court to have ‘regard’ to all the circumstances which reasonably can have a bearing on the question whether ‘by reason of the passage of time’ an order to return would be unjust.
In extradition proceedings there is no proof of fact, in the proper sense of the word, and in certain cases there might be difficulty in deciding as to the primary facts upon which the court should proceed.
Viscount Dilhorne said: ‘I see nothing in the material before this House to lead to the conclusion that as a result of the passage of time it would be impossible for [the two accused] to obtain justice, and, that being so, I am unable to conclude that by reason of the passage of time their return would be unjust or oppressive.’

Judges:

Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Keith of Kinkel

Citations:

[1978] AC 247

Statutes:

Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 8(3)

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 . .
Cited – Gomes v Trinidad and Tobago HL 29-Apr-2009
Each appellant challenged orders for their extradition, saying that the delay had been too prolonged, and that detention in Trinidad’s appalling jails would be an infringement of their human rights.
Held: The House had to consider its own . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.270747

Schtraks v Government Of Israel And Others: HL 6 Sep 1962

Extradition — Habeas corpus — Nature of proceedings — Whether further evidence not before chief magistrate when making committal order admissible — Extradition Act, 1870 (33 and 34 Vict. c. 52), s. 3 (1).
Extradition — Political offence — Political character of offence connotes idea of asylum in England for political fugitive — Fugitive must be at odds with state seeking extradition on issue connected with political control of state — Extradition Act, 1870 (33 and 34 Vict. c. 52), s. 3 (1).
Extradition — Territory — Alleged crime committed in part of Jerusalem occupied by Israel — De facto, but not de jure, authority of State of Israel over that part of Jerusalem recognised by United Kingdom government — Whether extradition treaty of 1960 applied to that part of Jerusalem — Israel (Extradition) Order, 1960 (S.I. 1960 No. 1660).

Judges:

Lord Reid, Viscount Radcliffe, Lord Evershed, Lord Jenkins and Lord Hodson

Citations:

[1964] AC 556, [1962] 3 All ER 529, [1962] UKHL 4, [1962] 3 WLR 1013

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1870 3(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – VB and Others v Westminster Magistrates SC 5-Nov-2014
Extraditions to follow normal open justice rules
Application was made by Rwanda for the extradition of four individuals to face crimes said to have been committed during their civil war. Witnesses were prepared to give evidence but only in private and not being seen by the representatives of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.554430

King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and Another: Admn 20 Aug 2004

The prisoner had argued that the alleged offence underlying the application for his extradition to Belgium had been committed in part in England, and was therefore not extradictable. The prosecutor appealed.
Held: Part I of the 2003 Act was intended to be a complete code and part of the European arrest warrant scheme, intended to facilitate extradition between member states. Many offences are now transnational, and it would be highly regrettable if they were not extradictable. There was nothing in the language of s65 to exclude the applications of subsections (3) to (6) from being framework offences. ‘The conduct’ in 65(2) meant such of the conduct as constituted a criminal offence onder the law of the territory to which the Act was being applied, and the case was remitted to eth District Judge to apply that test. Section 65(2) to (6) formed a list, that conduct constituted an extradition offence if it fell within any of these subsections, which were not mutually exclusive, and that there was no reason to confine subsections (3) to (6) to non-framework list offences. The court construed ‘the conduct’ in section 65(2) to (6) to mean ‘such of the conduct as constitutes a criminal offence (under the law of the category 1 territory)’, and held that the present case fell within both (2) and (3) of section 65.

Judges:

Henriques and Stanley Burnton JJ

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2019 (Admin), Times 08-Oct-2004, [2005] 1 WLR 1389, [2005] 2 All ER 181

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 28 65(2), Council Framework Decision on a European arrest warrant: COM/2001/0522 final – CNS 2001/0215

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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 – 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: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200349

Holmes v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another: Admn 20 Aug 2004

The applicant sought his release from imprisonment where he awaited extradition to Germany. He was suspected of an offence of deception. He said there was insufficient evidence that the offence alleged would be an offence here. The alleged offence involved having misused the passwords of others, which was the deception of a machine.
Held: Davies v Flackett was not authority to say that a machine could not be deceived and an unauthorised access offence might have been charged in any event under the 1990 Act. Human beings were also deceived in this case, not just a machine. However ‘credited’ under the 1968 Act required an unconditional adjustment to the banker’s balance, and a correspondening debit of which there was no evidence here. However the credit became unconditional, and judicial note was taken that banks do not credit one account without another being debited. The charge of obtaining a money transfer by deception was made out. Theft was also made out.

Judges:

Mr Justice Henriques and Mr Justice Stanley Burntonzz

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2020 (Admin), Times 28-Oct-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 9(8)(a), Theft Act 1968 15A 15B, Computer Misuse Act 1990 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Davies v Flackett 1973
One cannot deceive a machine, since it does not have a mind. This may not be the case for the purposes of the Theft Acts. . .
Cited – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1991) CACD 16-Jun-1992
cw Crime – Computer misuse – Unauthorised access – Person using one computer to obtain from it unauthorised benefit – Whether unauthorised use of single computer within statute – ‘Access to any program or data . .
Cited – Regina v Adebayo CACD 7-Jul-1997
The defendant had been employed in the probate registry, and sought by deception to conspire with others to use the information he obtained to obtain money from estates. He appealed, saying that the court should not have convicted him of obtaining . .
Distinguished – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1985) CACD 1986
An employee had made a secret profit by selling his own goods on his employer’s premises, thereby breaking the terms of his contract of employment.
Held: The moneys the employee received from his private customers were not received on account . .
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 . .
Cited – Kaur v Chief Constable for Hampshire CACD 1981
The court was concerned not to extend the Theft Act to include as thefts activities which many people would not consider to be such: ‘the court should not be astute to find that a theft has taken place where it would be straining the language so to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Crime

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200348

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 bodily injury to a police officer by the explosion of an explosive substance and the alleged murder of that police officer.
Held: The description of the alleged conduct that was set out in the request was not proper, accurate or fair, in that it did not make clear that the policeman was in his house at the time and not near the car under which an explosive was being placed, or that the device was not a timed device but one which required a fuse to be lit. The application for habeas corpus therefore succeeded in relation to those two charges: (Thomas LJ) ‘….[I]t is in my view very important that a state requesting extradition from the UK fairly and properly describes the conduct alleged, as the accuracy and fairness of the description plays such an important role in the decisions that have to be made by the Secretary of State and the Court in the UK. Scrutiny of the description of the conduct alleged to constitute the offence alleged, where as here a question is raised about its accuracy, is not an enquiry into evidential sufficiency; the court is not concerned to assess the quality or sufficiency of the evidence in support of the conduct alleged, but it is concerned, if materials are put before it which call into question the accuracy and fairness of the description, to see if the description of the conduct alleged is fair and accurate.’

Judges:

Justice Silber Lord Justice Thomas

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 1672 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Castillo v Kingdom of Spain and Another Admn 12-Jun-2004
. .

Cited by:

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

Extradition

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198716

Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison ex parte Cheng: HL 16 Apr 1973

Lord Diplock traced the history of the political offence exception to offences requiring extradition, and emphasised the need for a connection between the impugned conduct and changes to government or government policy: ‘My Lords, the noun that is qualified by the adjectival phrase ‘of a political character,’ is ‘offence.’ One must, therefore, consider what are the juristic elements in an offence, particularly one which is an extradition crime, to which the epithet ‘political’ can apply. I would accept that it applies to the mental element: the state of mind of the accused when he did the act which constitutes the physical element in the offence with which he is charged. I would accept, too, that the relevant state of mind is not restricted to the intent necessary to constitute the offence with which he is charged, for in the case of none of the extradition crimes can this properly be described as being political. The relevant mental element must involve some less immediate object which the accused sought to achieve by doing the physical act. It is unnecessary for the purposes of the present appeal, and would, in my view, be unwise, to attempt to define how remote that object might be. If the accused had robbed a bank in order to obtain funds to support a political party, the object would, in my view, clearly be too remote to constitute a political offence. But if the accused had killed a dictator in the hope of changing the government of the country, his object would be sufficiently immediate to justify the epithet ‘political.’ For politics are about government. ‘Political’ as descriptive of an object to be achieved must, in my view, be confined to the object of overthrowing or changing the government of a state or inducing it to change its policy or escaping from its territory the better so to do. No doubt any act done with any of these objects would be a ‘political act,’ whether or not it was done within the territory of the government against whom it was aimed. But the question is not simply whether it is political qua ‘act’ but whether it is political qua ‘offence.’

Judges:

Lord Diplock, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Hodson

Citations:

[1973] AC 931, [1973] UKHL 8, [1973] 2 WLR 746, [1973] 2 All ER 204, [1973] Crim LR 362

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1870 3(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Considered – T v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 22-May-1996
The applicant for asylum had been involved in an airport bomb attack killing 10 people. Asylum had been refused on the basis that this was a non-political crime. Though the organisation had political objectives, those were only indirectly associated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.195751

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 applicable. Lord Steyn said that ‘[t]he correct approach is to ask, against the relevant context, what the legal effect of the pronounced decision is.’ He concluded: ‘[The Court of Appeal’s] view [that in substance the judge had been making an order for certiorari] is reinforced by the judge’s conclusion that ‘I find that the orders of committal are void’. The judge was in effect making a declaration that the orders of committal were void. From that decision it followed that the state was no longer entitled to detain the applicants. The judge had based his decision on judicial review. Accordingly there was a right of appeal against the critical order.’
The dissenting minority said: ‘Even if the judge (contrary to his express statement) is to be treated as having made an order of certiorari, we do not see how that helps the applicants. That only means that he made two orders: a deemed order of certiorari and an actual order that habeas corpus should issue. The applicants may have been entitled to appeal against the first. But that does not enable them to set aside the order for release unless they can also appeal against the second.’

Judges:

Lord Steyn, Sir John Roch and Sir Swinton Thomas, Lord Hoffmann and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry dissenting

Citations:

[2004] UKPC 10, [2004] 1 WLR 902

Links:

Bailii, PC, PC, PC

Cited by:

Overruled – 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 . .
See Also – 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’.
See Also – Knowles and others v Superintendent of HM Prison Fox Hill and others PC 23-Mar-2005
(Bahamas) The claimants resisted requests for their extradition to the US on drugs charges. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Extradition, Litigation Practice

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.193877

Jaffar v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another: QBD 25 Nov 2003

The defendant sought to challenge an order for his extradition, saying that four of the five charges were time barred.
Held: It was sufficient that any one charge remained effective. The court’s discretion in the section was limited.

Judges:

Wool LCJ, Mackay J

Citations:

Times 06-Dec-2003, [2003] EWHC 3077 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 11(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – In the Matter of Debs Admn 6-Mar-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189954

Austins v Spain and Another: Admn 12 Oct 2004

Application for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus. The application is directed to an order made in the Bow Street Magistrates’ Court on 26th April 2004, by which the applicant was committed on bail to await the decision of the Secretary of State whether he should be returned to Spain in compliance with a request for his extradition issued by the Spanish authorities.

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2693 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.219926

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 allowed that having been convicted in his absence, in contumacy, he should have been held on the basis that he was unconvicted. His detention was unlawful, and he was to be released.
Lord Hope said: ‘It is a fundamental point of principle that any use of the procedures that exist for depriving a person of his liberty must be carefully scrutinised.’

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe

Citations:

[2003] UKHL 19, Times 08-Apr-2003, Gazette 12-Jun-2003, [2004] 1 AC 101, [2003] 2 All ER 647, [2003] 2 WLR 1089

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989, United States of America (Extradition) Order 1976 (SI 1976/2144)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, ex parte Zezza HL 1983
In the context of an application for extradition, where the conviction was a ‘conviction for contumacy’ that phrase is not defined. It does not have an ordinary meaning in the English language. ‘Contumacy’ indicates insubordination or disobedience . .
Cited – In re Coppin 1866
The French sought to extradite Coppin who had been convicted by a court in Paris in his absence in a conviction ‘par contumace’. That conviction might be annulled if he surrendered to the court’s jurisdiction, when he would be tried again for the . .
Cited – In re Nielsen HL 1984
The House considered the role of the metropolitan magistrate under section 9 and 10 of the 1870 Act in the context of an application for extradition under the treaty between Denmark and the United Kingdom. At section 9 hearings it had been the . .
Cited – Government of the United States of America v McCaffery HL 1984
Extradition was sought under the Treaty between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the United States of America. It was an ‘exceptional accusation case’, because article III of the Treaty provides that, in addition to the . .

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

Crime, Extradition

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180416

Mohammad Fakhar Al Zaman Lodhi v The Governor of Brixton Prison, The Government of The United Arab Emirates: Admn 9 Oct 2002

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 2029 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Lodhi v Governor of HMP Brixton and Government of United Arab Emirates Admn 13-Mar-2001
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Lodhi v Governor of HMP Brixton and Government of United Arab Emirates Admn 13-Mar-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177381

Goatley v The Governor of HM Prison Brixton and the Government of the Netherlands: QBD 20 Jun 2002

The second respondent sought the extradition of the applicant for trial for drugs offences. He said that the alleged offences were extra terratorial to the second defendant, but that extradition was restricted to intra territorial offences.
Held: The importing of cannabis is an intra-territorial offence, as is a conspiracy to commit that offence. There was jurisdiction, and the request for habeas corpus failed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy, Nelson J

Citations:

[2002] EWHC 1209 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 – Regina v Wall 1974
The charge was fraudulent evasion of the restriction on importation of dangerous drugs. For that offence to be committed, the drugs in question must necessarily arrive in this country.
Held: If sending a letter from abroad to England . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Crime

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174118