Category: Extradition

Regina (Oncel) v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another: QBD 19 Dec 2001

A request had been made for the extradition of the applicant for offences for which he had already been tried and acquitted in Turkey. He said that the length of time since the offences made it unfair to return him, and that he faced the possibility of being tried twice for the same offence.
Held: When a court considered a request for extradition, and in particular a plea that it would be oppressive for a prosecution to go ahead because of the length of time since the offence alleged, the court should take account also of any possible double jeopardy. The defendant did not strictly face double jeopardy since he was subject to an appeal by the prosecution which might still result in his conviction. Nevertheless the facts could be taken into account under the general rule about oppressive prosecutions, and some of the offences could also be categorised as political.

Judges:

Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice and Mr Justice Ouseley

Citations:

Times 17-Jan-2002, Gazette 06-Mar-2002, [2001] EWHC Admin 1142

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 1(1) 6(3) 11(3)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167399

In Re Khalid Al-Fawwaz (Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus) (on Appeal From a Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division): HL 17 Dec 2001

The fact that a crime for which extradition was sought was extra-territorial one to the country making the request, was not enough to counter the application. The schedule required the person to be ‘accused or have been convicted of an extradition crime committed within the jurisdiction of any foreign state’ The reference to jurisdiction was not a reference to the territory of the state involved. There was a difference between the seeking of a fugitive criminal and of an ‘extradition crime’. ‘Within jurisdiction’ included but was wider than ‘in the territory’ of the foreign state, and the question was whether the conduct would be triable in the United States and if that conduct were transposed to England, would be triable in England. Many crimes are now international in nature, and Acts should not be interpreted restrictively so as to prevent their prosecution.
Anonymous evidence may be admissible in certain circumstances in extradition proceedings.

Judges:

Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Hutton, Lord Millett, Lord Scott of Foscote and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Citations:

Times 18-Dec-2001, [2001] UKHL 69, [2002] 2 WLR 101, [2002] 1 All ER 545, [2002] 1 AC 556

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 Sch 1 para 20, United States of America (Extradition) Order 1976 (1976 No 2144), United States of America (Extradition) (Amendment) Order (SI 1986 No 2020), Extradition Act 1870

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Al-Fawwaz v Governor of Brixton Prison QBD 20-Dec-2000
To found an extradition application, it was not sufficient that the crime should be listed as such by English law, but it was also necessary that it should be a crime of appropriate standing in the country to which extradition was sought. The crime . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Davis HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant had been tried for the murder of two men by shooting them at a party. He was identified as the murderer by three witnesses who had been permitted to give evidence anonymously, from behind screens, because they had refused, out of fear, . .
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 – 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 . .
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: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167066

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 the eventual court of trial to hear. Article 5 expressly required the lawfulness of a person’s detention to be determined speedily by a court. The Magistrates’ Court was the obvious and proper forum for this question. Existing case law which said that it was not for the Magistrates to decide whether the procedure as a whole was an abuse did not restrict this Human Rights power.

Judges:

Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Pitchford

Citations:

Times 12-Dec-2001, Gazette 01-Feb-2002, [2001] EWHC 980 (Admin), [2001] EWHC Admin 980, [2002] QB 887

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 11(3) Sch1 Para 6(1), European Convention on Human Rights 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – 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 – 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 – Regina v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, ex Parte Bennett (No 1) HL 24-Jun-1993
The defendant had been brought to the UK in a manner which was in breach of extradition law. He had, in effect, been kidnapped by the authorities.
Held: The High Court may look at how an accused person was brought within the jurisdiction when . .

Cited by:

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 – 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, Human Rights, Magistrates

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167014

Pin Chakkaphak v Government of Thailand: QBD 27 Jul 2001

The claimant sought a writ of habeas corpus. The defendant had applied for his extradition, based on allegations of dishonesty in the management of a company. The actions alleged occurred in a period of financial stress, and it was agreed he was to take no personal benefit. The claimant asserted that there was no evidence of dishonesty. Given the accepted commercial practice at the time, no tribunal could properly find evidence of dishonesty, and the writ was granted.

Judges:

Mr Justice Harrison, Mr Justice Kennedy

Citations:

[2001] EWHC QB 158

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159905

Holmes v Government of Portugal: Admn 9 Nov 2004

Application for a writ of habeas corpus in respect of an applicant who was committed at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court to await the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department on a request for his extradition to Portugal for a number of offences including obtaining property by deception, using a false instrument, passing or tendering counterfeit currency, and having custody or control of counterfeit currency.

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2875 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.220533

Bleta, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department: Admn 9 Aug 2004

Extradition of the defendant was sought so as to serve a sentence of imprisonment.
Held: Use in the warrant of the actual words in the Act was not required. ‘Even if the actual words of the Act are not incorporated in the request, and even if there is no equivalent wording, in my view, at least in a clear case, it is permissible for the Secretary of State to look at the request itself and its supporting documents to see whether the matter is clear. Adopting a purposive interpretation of the 2003 Act, it seems to me that this is, in effect, an examination of whether the request contains the necessary statement.’ and ‘My conclusion is that it is only in a clear case that the Secretary of State should conclude, in the absence of a statement by the requesting state, that the relevant defendant is not only at large but unlawfully at large.’

Judges:

Crane J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 2034 (Admin), [2005] 1 WLR 3194, [2005] 1 All ER 810

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 70

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

Extradition

Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.201625

Love v The Government of The United States of America and Another: Admn 5 Feb 2018

The court considered the forum bar in section 83A of the 2003 Act,

Judges:

Lord Burdon of Maldon LCJ, Ouseley J

Citations:

[2018] WLR(D) 66, [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin), [2018] 1 WLR 2889, [2018] 2 All ER 911, [2018] Lloyd’s Rep FC 217

Links:

WLRD, Bailii, Judiciary

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 83A

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.604759

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Peter Elliot: Admn 18 Jul 2001

The applicant sought to challenge an order for his return to Hong Kong under the Act. He said that the ordnance under which he was to be tried, and anti-corruption statute, infringed his human rights by transferring to him the burden of proof. The Secretary of State argued that an English court should not impose its standards on other countries (per Drozd).
Held: Issues as to the fairness of a trial are best decided at the trial itself. The Hong Kong ordnance did include protections, and such offences might require special provisions. The Secretary’s decision to extradite was not to be faulted.

Judges:

Lord Justice Rose And Mr Justice Silber

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 559

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 12(1), European Convention on Human Rights 6.2

Citing:

Cited – Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain ECHR 26-Jun-1992
The applicants complained of the unfairness of their trial in Andorra (which the Court held it had no jurisdiction to investigate) and of their detention in France, which was not found to violate article 5.
Held: Member states are obliged to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140350

Lodhi v Governor of HMP Brixton and Government of United Arab Emirates: Admn 13 Mar 2001

Judges:

Brooke LJ, Morison J

Citations:

[2001] EWHC Admin 178

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 12, European Convention on Human Rights

Citing:

See Also – Mohammad Fakhar Al Zaman Lodhi v The Governor of Brixton Prison, The Government of The United Arab Emirates Admn 9-Oct-2002
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Mohammad Fakhar Al Zaman Lodhi v The Governor of Brixton Prison, The Government of The United Arab Emirates Admn 9-Oct-2002
. .
Cited – Ahmad and Aswat v United States of America Admn 30-Nov-2006
The defendants appealed orders for their extradition. They were suspected of terrorist offences, and feared that instead of facing a trial, they would be placed before a military commission.
Held: The appeals failed. The court had diplomatic . .
Cited – 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, Human Rights

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140287

Nadeem Akhtar Saifi v Governor of Brixton Prison and Union of India: Admn 21 Dec 2000

The applicant for habeas corpus resisted extradition to India on the ground, among others, that the prosecution relied on a statement obtained by torture and since retracted.
Held: the court accepted the magistrate’s judgment that fairness did not call for exclusion of the statement, but was clear that the common law and domestic statute law (s78 of the 1984 Act) gave effect to the intent of article 15 of the International Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984.
Where evidence was brought in the form of a translation into English, it was not admissible under the Extradition Act unless it was in a language capable of being understood by the witness giving that primary evidence. The witness had given his evidence in Hindi, and it had been translated, as he spoke, into English, and he had then being asked to sign the translation. That statement was not admissible. The actual words used by the witness were no longer available for challenge. The concept of the burden of proof had no application in the circumstances of challenging the effect on fairness of admitting the statement. When a court was asked to determine whether an accusation was in good faith, that question went not to the issue of the extradition proceedings themselves, but as to the accusation by the prosecution witness and the charge.

Judges:

Rose LJ and Newman J

Citations:

Times 24-Jan-2001, [2000] EWHC Admin 437, [2000] EWHC QB 33, [2001] 1 WLR 1134

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 11(3) 27(1), Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78, International Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984 (1990, Cm 1775) 15

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Edgell v Glover, Garnett (Returning Officer) QBD 4-Nov-2003
The constituency had adopted an all postal ballot, resulting in a counted majority of one. One ballot paper’s confirmation of identity had not been signed.
Held: The function of the court, exercising its jurisdiction under section 48(1), is . .
Cited – A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
Evidence from 3rd Party Torture Inadmissible
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140254

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Augusto Pinochet Ugarte: Admn 27 May 1999

The applicant, the former president of Chile, sought to challenge an order allowing an application for his extradition to proceed. He said that once the matters deemed inadmissible had been excluded, there was insufficicient ground to allow the proceedings to continue.
Held: The court need not address the merits of the final application. There remained issues which should be determined by the court after a full hearing.

Judges:

Ognall J

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 505

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989

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 Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd HL 9-Apr-1981
Limitations on HMRC discretion on investigation
The Commissioners had been concerned at tax evasion of up to 1 million pounds a year by casual workers employed in Fleet Street. They agreed with the employers and unions to collect tax in the future, but that they would not pursue those who had . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, ex parte Kahan QBD 1989
The court deplored any use of an application to a Divisional Court ahead of a final determination by the committing magistrate. . .
Cited – Government of United States of America v Bowe HL 1990
The House referred to the desirability of all the evidence being adduced before the magistrate before any application for a prerogative remedy was sought. . .
Cited – Regina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) HL 15-Jan-1999
A petition was brought to request that a judgment of the House be set aside because the wife of one their lordships, Lord Hoffmann, was as an unpaid director of a subsidiary of Amnesty International which had in turn been involved in a campaign . .
See Also – In Re Pinochet Ugarte QBD 7-Jan-2000
In extradition proceedings which had been before the House of Lords it might be right for the papers to be served on interested third parties and human rights organisations. At that level, the matter discussed were primarily legal. However when the . .

Cited by:

See Also – In Re Pinochet Ugarte QBD 7-Jan-2000
In extradition proceedings which had been before the House of Lords it might be right for the papers to be served on interested third parties and human rights organisations. At that level, the matter discussed were primarily legal. However when the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Crime

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139769

In re Agnaldo Ernesto Pinto and In the Matter of an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum Agnaldo Ernesto Pinto and Secretary of State for Home Department; Governor of Brixton Prison and Government of India: Admn 19 May 1999

Citations:

[1999] EWHC Admin 462

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 11(3)(c)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Pinto v Governor of Brixton Prison and another Admn 2004
The Court was asked to grant Habeas Corpus on the ground that the European Arrest Warrant received in respect of the defendant was ‘fundamentally deficient’. At the initial hearing, the district judge had remanded the applicant in custody to await . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.139726

Augusto Pinochet Ugarte and In the Matter of an Application for Leave To Move for Judicial Review Regina v Evans (Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate): Admn 28 Oct 1998

A provisional warrant had been issued by a magistrate for the arrest of the former president of Chile when visting London. The arrest had been in response to an extradition request from a judge in Spain and related to allegations of criminal acts by the appellant during his time as head of state against spanish nationals living in Chile.
Held: ‘Extradition is the formal name given to a process whereby one sovereign state, ‘the requesting state’, asks another sovereign state, ‘the requested state’, to return to the requesting state someone present in the requested state, ‘the subject of the request’, in order that the subject of the request may be brought to trial on criminal charges in the requesting state. ‘ A former head of state had immunity from arrest and extradition in respect of allegations of misconduct whilst head of state. One country had no jurisdiction over the head of state of another. An international court only might have such power.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill LCJ, Collins J, Richards J

Citations:

Times 03-Nov-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 1013, [1998] EWHC Admin 1022, [1998] EWHC Admin 1021

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Extradition Order 1990 (1990/1507) Art 12, Extradition Act 1989 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v West London Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Klahn QBD 1979
The issue of a summons by a magistrate is a judicial act: ‘The duty of a magistrate in considering an application for the issue of a summons is to exercise a judicial discretion in deciding whether or not to issue a summons. It would appear that he . .
Cited – Regina v Madan CCA 1961
The defendant, a clerk on the staff of the High Commissioner for India, was entitled to diplomatic immunity. He purported to waive his immunity when charged with attempting to obtain a sum of money by false pretences. He was convicted at the County . .
Cited – Al-Adsani v Government of Kuwait and Others (No 2) CA 29-Mar-1996
The claimant alleged that he had suffered torture in a security prison in Kuwait, and he obtained leave to serve out of the jurisdiction on the Government of Kuwait, and on three individuals, one of whom at least was served, on the ground that he . .

Cited by:

Appealed from – Regina v Bartle and The Commissioner Of Police For The Metropolis and Others Ex Parte Pinochet Ugarte, Regina v Evans and Another and The Commissioner of Police For The Metropolis and Others (No 1) HL 22-Nov-1998
The government of Spain had issued an arrest warrant and application for extradition in respect of Pinochet Ugarte for his alleged crimes whilst president of Chile. He was arrested in England. He pleaded that he had immunity from prosecution.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Constitutional, Prisons

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.139134

Regina v Adeniyi Momodu Allison; Regina v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court ex parte Adeniyi Momodu Allison: Admn 13 May 1998

Offences under sections 2 and 3 of the Computer Misuse Act 1991 are extraditable offences, since they are punishable with imprisonment in excess of one year.

Citations:

Times 02-Jun-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 536

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989, Computer Misuse Act 1990

Extradition

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138657

Sergio Cuoghi v Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison Brixton and Government of Switzerland: Admn 30 Apr 1998

The absence of an authenticated documentation as required by the Act was not fatal to an extradition application. The magistrate could act on matters which were before him, but which had not been before the Home Secretary.

Citations:

Gazette 03-Jun-1998, Times 12-May-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 474

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 7(4)

Extradition

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138595

In the Matter of Debs: Admn 6 Mar 1998

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 271

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

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

Extradition

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138392

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Masterman: Admn 10 Feb 1998

The defendant had been arrested as a fugitive offender having been sentenced for rape in the US. The defendant argued that it would be ‘unjust or oppressive to return him’. The defendant argued that the case was an injustice but that if returned he would not have available to him a right of appeal against the convictio.
Held: If there were no right of appeal, a discretion may be exercised in his favour even in the absence of doubts about the safety of the conviction. In practice the defendant would have a right of appeal, and ‘any submission that the Secretary of State failed or failed adequately to address the question of rights of appeal in this case, is doomed to failure. There is nothing placed before me which serves arguably to demonstrate that there was anything placed before the Secretary of State which ought to have caused him to have any sensible doubt about the integrity of the appeal process in the United States or as to availability of any right or avenues of appeal. ‘ Order accordingly.

Judges:

Harry Ognall J

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 163

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 6(2) 12

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

Extradition

Updated: 27 May 2022; Ref: scu.138284

Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Gilmore and Ogun: Admn 6 Jun 1997

An ‘offence under the Act’ does not include a conspiracy to commit that offence for purposes of extradition proceedings. The court rejected an argument that the effect of the Act of 1989 was to free the Treaty from the constraints imposed by the schedule to the Act of 1870.

Citations:

Times 04-Jul-1997, [1997] EWHC Admin 530, [1999] QB 611

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1870, Extradition Act 1989 Sch 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Bow Street Magistrates ex parte Government of the United States of America; In re Allison HL 2-Sep-1999
A person within an organisation who was authorised to access some data on a computer system at a particular level, could exceed his authority by accessing data at a level outside that authority. The unauthorised access offence under the 1990 Act was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.137475

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.

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 208, [1999] QB 886

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 11

Citing:

Cited – 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 . .
Preferred – 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 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: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.137153

Public minister v Sut: ECJ 6 Sep 2018

(Opinion) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Principle of mutual recognition – Framework Decision 2002/584 / JHA – European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States – Article 4 (6) – Reason for optional non-execution of European Arrest Warrant – Enforcement – Offense leading to a sentence of deprivation of liberty in the issuing Member State with only a fine in the Member State of execution – Article 2 (4) – Scope of the dual criminality requirement – Framework Decision 2008/909 / JHA – Article 8 (3) – Adjustment of the sentence

Citations:

C-514/17, [2018] EUECJ C-514/17 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Extradition

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.622596

Regina (Okandeji) v Bow Street Magistrates Court: QBD 11 Nov 2005

The defendant had taken his challenge to the magistrates’ decision on the application to extradite him to Australia to the High Court, who had remitted the case for reconsideration of whether the Australian law on misuse of drugs was compliant with human rights law in Europe. The district judge had reconsidered the issue in the light of the additional evidence then available, but had come to the same conclusion.
Held: The review now sought was against a decision after a remission by the High Court and was to be treated as one of the High Court itself procedurally. A right of appeal lay still to the House of Lords, but not otherwise.

Judges:

Maurice Kay LJ, Penry-Davey J

Citations:

Times 23-Nov-2005, [2005] EWHC 2925 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 87(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition, Litigation Practice

Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.235388

In Re Levin; Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Levin: HL 10 Apr 1997

The applicant had been detained pending extradition to the United States on charges of fraud. He said the evidence would not have been sufficient to justify his committal for trial.
Held: The Francis case did not establish that the 1984 Act did not apply to extradition procceedings, and they might also be admissible under the 1988 Act. At issue there was whether the accused had used a computer terminal to gain unauthorised access to the computerised fund transfer services of a bank in order to make fraudulent transfers of funds from accounts of clients of the bank to accounts which he controlled. Each request for a transfer was processed automatically and a record of the transaction was copied to the computer’s historical records. The printout of screen displays of these records was admissible to prove the transfers of funds they recorded. Lord Hoffman stated: ‘they do not assert that such transfers took place. They recorded the transfers . . . The evidential status of the printouts is no different from that of a photocopy of forged cheques.’
Lord Hoffmann discussed the nature of extradition proceedings: ‘Finally, I think that extradition proceedings are criminal proceedings. They are of course criminal proceedings of a very special kind, but criminal proceedings nonetheless.
Both case law and the terms of the Extradition Act 1989 point to extradition proceedings being categorised as criminal. First, the cases. In Amand v. Home Secretary and Minister of Defence of Royal Netherlands Government [1943] A.C. 147 this House approved the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ex parte Alice Woodhall (1888) 20 Q.B.D. 832 that the refusal of an application for habeas corpus by a person committed to prison with a view to extradition was a decision in a ‘criminal cause or matter.’ It would seem to me to follow a fortiori that the extradition proceedings themselves are criminal proceedings and in Amand’s case Viscount Simon L.C. said, at p 156, that the cases demonstrated that ‘the matter in respect of which the accused is in custody may be ‘criminal’ although he is not charged with a breach of our own criminal law.’
Secondly, the Extradition Act 1989. Section 9(2) and paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 1 require that extradition proceedings should be conducted ‘as nearly as may be’ as if they were committal proceedings before magistrates. Committal proceedings are of course criminal proceedings and these provisions would make little sense if the metropolitan magistrate could not apply the normal rules of criminal evidence and procedure. The suggestion of counsel in Ex parte Francis that extradition proceedings were ‘sui generis’ would only make matters worse, because it would throw doubt upon whether the magistrate could apply the rules of civil evidence and procedure either.’

Judges:

Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hutton

Citations:

[1997] Crim LR 891, [1997] 3 All ER 289, [1997] 3 WLR 117, [1998] 1 Cr App Rep 22, [1997] UKHL 27, [1997] AC 741

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 69, Extradition Act 1989, Criminal Justice Act 1988 23 24

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another, Ex Parte Levin QBD 11-Mar-1996
Extradition proceedings are criminal proceedings so as to allow the admission of computer printout under criminal procedures. . .
Explained – Regina v Governor of Belmarsh Prison and Another Ex Parte Francis QBD 12-Apr-1995
Justices may not hear evidence from accomplices in extradition proceedings. Also foreign intercept evidence may be used in support of extradition proceedings. Extradition proceedings are not criminal proceedings as such, but may be sui generis. . .
Cited – Amand v Home Secretary and Minister of Defence of Royal Netherlands Government HL 1943
A Dutch serviceman who had been arrested for desertion and brought before a magistrate who ordered him to be handed over to the Dutch military authorities under the Allied Forces Act 1940. An application for habeas corpus was rejected by a . .
Cited – Regina v King’s Lynn Justices, Ex parte Holland QBD 1993
Section 78 is properly applied in committal proceedings. Examining justices could exclude the evidence from their consideration only if satisfied that its admission at the trial would be so obviously unfair to the proceedings that no judge properly . .

Cited by:

Cited – A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
Evidence from 3rd Party Torture Inadmissible
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
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 – McKinnon v USA and Another Admn 3-Apr-2007
The defendant appealed an order for his extradition. He had used his computer in London to access remotely defence and other government computers in the USA, and deleted files and copied others onto his own computer. He had been offered a deal if he . .
Cited – Cuoghi v Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison Brixton and Government of Switzerland CA 15-Jul-1997
The obtaining of an order to obtain evidence in support of a writ of habeas corpus application is a criminal matter. The Court of Appeal has no civil jurisdiction. Extradition proceedings, as well as proceedings ancillary or incidental to those . .
Cited – 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.

Crime, Extradition

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.135017

Arranz v Spanish Judicial Authority: Admn 14 Jun 2013

Appeal against the judgment at the Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordering the surrender of the respondent Judicial Authority under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. Three issues arose on the appeal:
i) Did the EAW comply with s.2 of the Extradition Act 2003 (the 2003 Act)?
ii) Was there an abuse of process?
iii) Would extradition to Spain result in the imposition of a retroactive penalty in breach of the appellant’s rights under Article 7 and therefore arbitrary detention in breach of Article 5?

Judges:

Sir John Thomas P QBD, Simon J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 1662 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Spanish Judicial Authority v Arranz Admn 31-Jul-2015
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.510868

Kuprevicius v Government of Lithuania: QBD 18 May 2006

The claimant challenged his extradition saying that the arrest warrant had not explicitly alleged, as required, that he was ‘unlawfully at large’.
Held: The statement could be inferred where the circumstances properly allowed that.

Judges:

Richards LJ, Toulson J

Citations:

Times 12-Jun-2006

Statutes:

Extradition Act 2003 2(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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

Extradition

Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.242641

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 treated as effectively in custody.

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ, Mance J

Citations:

Gazette 18-Mar-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 214, [1998] 3 WLR 221, [1998] QB 994, [1998] COD 301

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 6(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 Home Department ex parte Launder Admn 6-Aug-1996
The exercise of a discretion on extradition is judicially reviewable in the same way as are other decisions. . .
See Also – Regina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Launder HL 13-Mar-1997
The question arose as to whether or not the decision of the Secretary of State to extradite the applicant to Hong Kong would have amounted to a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Although the Convention was not at that time in force . .

Cited by:

Cited – Lukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland SC 23-May-2012
Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for the extradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.87875

Regina v Governor of Belmarsh Prison and Another Ex Parte Gilligan: QBD 20 Jan 1998

A magistrate ordering the transfer of a prisoner to Ireland must be satisfied that a sufficiently serious offence was alleged, but strict evidence was not required. As to the 1988 Act, the evidence must at least be admissible.

Citations:

Times 20-Jan-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 6, [1998] I Cr App R 14

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 2(2), Criminal Justice Act 1988 823(1)

Cited by:

Cited – Lobban, Regina v CACD 7-May-2004
The defendant appealed his conviction. A witness statement had been read, but he had wanted to cross examine her. The court was satisfied that her refusal to give evidence in person was through fear.
Held: In making the decision, the judge had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86721

Regina v Governor of Belmarsh Prison and Another, Ex Parte Gilligan; Regina v Governor of Exeter Prison and Another, Ex Parte Ellis: HL 1 Dec 1999

Provided there was sufficient correspondence between the offence alleged to have taken place in Ireland and a serious offence in England, it was proper to order his return to Ireland under an Irish warrant. There is no extradition treaty between the two countries, but the system was properly recorded in the 1965 Act. There was no need for identicality of the offence alleged and the comparable English offence.

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Steyn Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde

Citations:

Times 24-Nov-1999, Gazette 01-Dec-1999, [1999] UKHL 46, [1999] 3 WLR 1244, [2000] 1 All ER 113, [2001] 1 AC 84

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 2(2)

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, International

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85278

Regina v Bow Street Magistrates ex parte Government of the United States of America; In re Allison: HL 2 Sep 1999

A person within an organisation who was authorised to access some data on a computer system at a particular level, could exceed his authority by accessing data at a level outside that authority. The unauthorised access offence under the 1990 Act was not limited to access obtained by an outsider or hacker. A section 1 offence could be committed without the relevant intent being proved to be directed at particular data. A conspiracy to commit an offence under section 2 is extradictable.

Judges:

Lord Steyn, Lord Hutton, Lord Saville of Newdigate, Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough, Lord Millett

Citations:

Times 02-Sep-1999, [1999] UKHL 31, [1999] ALL ER 1, [2000] 2 AC 216

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Computer Misuse Act 1990, Extradition Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Gilmore and Ogun Admn 6-Jun-1997
An ‘offence under the Act’ does not include a conspiracy to commit that offence for purposes of extradition proceedings. The court rejected an argument that the effect of the Act of 1989 was to free the Treaty from the constraints imposed by the . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Bignell and Another QBD 6-Jun-1997
Policemen were convicted by the stipendiary magistrate of an offence under 1990 Act. They had requested a police computer operator to obtain information from the Police National Computer about the ownership and registration of two cars for their own . .
Not followed – Director of Public Prosecutions v Bignall Admn 16-May-1997
The defendant police officers had obtained information from the Police National Computer, but had used it for improper purposes.
Held: The prosecution should have taken place under the 1990 Act as unauthorised access, and had not been used . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Stanford CACD 1-Feb-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction for the unlawful interception of communications, saying that he was authorised to access the information he had obtained. He had instructed a junior employee to access emails by the use of an ID and password . .
Cited – Zakrzewski v The Regional Court In Lodz, Poland SC 23-Jan-2013
The appellant was subject to an extradition request. He objected that the request involved an aggregation of sentences and that this did not meet the requirement sof the 2003 Act. He had been arrested under the arrest warrant, but during his trial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Extradition

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85134

Regina v Brixton Prison and Another, Ex Parte Burke: HL 16 Jun 2000

It was proper to extradite to the US, a person who had been convicted and had served all the part of his sentence which he would serve in prison, but where some proportion of his sentence which would be served under a supervised release scheme remained to be served. There was no limitation to returning only after unlawful escapes from custody, but rather the provision set a minimum. The period of supervision was part of the original sentence.

Citations:

Times 16-Jun-2000, [2000] UKHL 35; 3 All ER 481; [2000] 3 WLR 33

Links:

House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 Sch 1 para 5(1)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Criminal Sentencing, Extradition

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85149

In Re Ismail (Application For Writ of Habeas Corpus) (On Appeal From A Divisional Court of The Queen’s Bench Division): HL 20 Aug 1998

The term ‘Accused person’ for the purposes of extradition can include a person yet to be charged. Allowance are to be made for foreign systems, and should recognise the purpose of the legislation and includes the desire to interview or where a person is wanted to help with inquiries.
Lord Steyn said: ”accused’ in section 1 of the Act of 1989 is not a term of art. It is a question of fact in each case whether the person passes the threshold test of being an ‘accused’ person . . one is concerned with the contextual meaning of ‘accused’ in a statute intended to serve the purpose of bringing to justice those accused of serious crimes. There is a transnational interest in the achievement of this aim. Extradition treaties, and extradition statutes, ought, therefore, to be accorded a broad and generous construction so far as the text permits it in order to facilitate extradition.’

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hutton

Citations:

Times 20-Aug-1998, Gazette 16-Sep-1998, [1998] 3 WLR 495, [1998] UKHL 32, [1999] 1 AC 320, [1998] 3 All ER 1007

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 1

Cited by:

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 – 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 – 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 – 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: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81949

Regina v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court ex parte Van der Holst: 1986

Citations:

[1986] 83 Cr App R 114

Cited by:

Cited – Enander v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another Admn 16-Nov-2005
The claimant sought habeas corpus. The Swedish authorities had issued a European Arrest Warrant for his extradition. He submitted that the authority issuing the warrant in Sweden did not amount to a ‘judicial authority’ because it would not be so . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.539977

Al-Fawwaz v Governor of Brixton Prison: QBD 20 Dec 2000

To found an extradition application, it was not sufficient that the crime should be listed as such by English law, but it was also necessary that it should be a crime of appropriate standing in the country to which extradition was sought. The crime also had to have been committed within the territory of the nation which sought extradition. Here, the USA sought extradition in respect to of offences which had not been committed in the USA, of people who had had no connection with the USA.

Citations:

Times 20-Dec-2000, [2000] EWHC Admin 424

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 1(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – In Re Khalid Al-Fawwaz (Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus) (on Appeal From a Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division) HL 17-Dec-2001
The fact that a crime for which extradition was sought was extra-territorial one to the country making the request, was not enough to counter the application. The schedule required the person to be ‘accused or have been convicted of an extradition . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, International

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77720

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department: ex parte Chahal: QBD 5 Apr 1993

The Home Secretary need not consider any risk of torture as an issue separate from that of persecution, when considering making an order for deportation.

Citations:

Ind Summary 05-Apr-1993

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 3(5)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Chahal CA 27-Oct-1993
Chahal was a Sikh separatist leader who was refused asylum and whom the Secretary of State proposed to deport to India as a threat to national security here.
Held: The Home Secretary must balance the need to deport against against any threat . .
See Also – Chahal v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-1996
Proper Reply Opportunity Required on Deportation
(Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Extradition

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.87941

Regina v Osman (No 4): 1992

Where a defendant’s own conduct was taken into account in considering any delay in extradition proceedings, the court should look also at delay by the prosecutor. In borderline cases, where the accused himself is not to blame, culpable delay by the requesting state can tip the balance.

Judges:

Woolf LJ

Citations:

[1992] 1 All ER 579

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

Extradition

Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.261509