Gibson v United States of America: PC 23 Jul 2007

(The Bahamas) The US government sought the extradition of the appellant from the Bahamas on drugs charges. The warrants were found to be void, and the defendant released unconditionally, when the nmagistrate rejected evidence from an admitted co-conspirator. It was then said thet the respondent had no right of appeal against a grant of habeas corpus.
Held: The Board faced three questions; whether the case could be distinguished from the case of Cartwright and Knowles, if not whether the decision in that case was incorrect, and if incorrect whether it must be followed. The cases were not properly distinguishable. The scope of habeas corpus was wide, and ‘It is impossible nowadays to argue that on an application for habeas corpus in extradition proceedings the Court is confined to a review of the formal validity of the detention order and cannot, except by certiorari, enquire into its substantial merits. ‘ The Board therefore considered whether it could depart from its own previous decisions.
Lord Woolf, Scott of Foscote L, Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood L, Carswell L, Mance L, Sir Christopher Rose
[2007] UKPC 52, Times 21-Aug-2007
CitedRegina v National Insurance Commissioner, Ex parte Hudson HL 1972
The House considered whether it would have power to make a ruling with prospective effect only. Lord Diplock said the matter deserved further consideration; Lord Simon said that the possibility of prospective overruling should be seriously . .
CitedPractice Statement (Judicial Precedent) HL 1966
The House gave guidance how it would treat an invitation to depart from a previous decision of the House. Such a course was possible, but the direction was not an ‘open sesame’ for a differently constituted committee to prefer their views to those . .
CitedArmah v Government of Ghana and Another HL 1968
The appellant was committed under 1881 Act to await his return to Ghana to face trial on corruption charges. He applied for a writ of habeas corpus contending inter alia that it would be unjust and oppressive to return him since he would be liable . .
CitedSamuel 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’.
CitedHorton v Sadler and Another HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimant had been injured in a road traffic accident for which the defendant was responsible in negligence. The defendant was not insured, and so a claim was to be made against the MIB. The plaintiff issued proceedings just before the expiry of . .
CitedFitzleet Estates Ltd v Cherry HL 9-Nov-1977
Income tax – Schedule D, Cases III and VI – Payments of interest and ground rent incurred when property was being developed – Whether capitalised or paid out of profits or gains brought into charge to tax – Income Tax Act 1952 (15 and 16 Geo. 6 and . .
OverruledCartwright 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 February 2021; Ref: scu.258432