The applicant sought to register, under the Act, an order against the funds of the defendant, who replied that the order sought to be registered had been obtained in a way which would infringe her human rights if obtained here. As a fugitive she had not been allowed to defend the claim.
Held: If the United States had been a party to the Convention, Article 6 would have required the Court of Appeal to consider the appellant’s appeal on the merits.
Judges:
Stanley Burnton J
Citations:
[2002] EWHC 1113 (Admin)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Ashingdane v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-1985
The right of access to the courts is not absolute but may be subject to limitations. These are permitted by implication since the right of access ‘by its very nature calls for regulation by the State, regulation which may vary in time and place . .
Cited – Poitrimol v France ECHR 23-Nov-1993
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs . .
See also – Government of United States of America v Montgomery and Montgomery CA 8-Jul-1998
Appeal from restraint orders. . .
Cited by:
See also – Government of United States of America v Montgomery and Montgomery CA 8-Jul-1998
Appeal from restraint orders. . .
Appeal from – Barnette v Government of the United States of America; United States Government v Montgomery (No 2) CA 24-Mar-2003
The appellant sought to resist the registration here of a confiscation order made in the US. She argued it would be contrary to the interests of justice to register it, that the US procedure would be unlawful here under the Convention, the appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 03 June 2022; Ref: scu.200329