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

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

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

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