The applicant sought to resist orders for the return to the US of what were alleged to be the proceeds (direct or indirect) of a fraud committed there. She had been in contempt of the court in the US and was a fugitive here. She complained that the US court had refused to allow her to be heard in appeals against the liability orders because of her fugitive status, and that the court here ought not to recognise an order which would not be made here in breach of her right to a fair trial.
Held: The fugitive entitlement doctrine is not an arbitrary deprivation of a party’s right to a hearing, but is intended to be a means of securing proper obedience to the orders of the court. The appeal failed.
Lord Steyn, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Clyde, Lord Carswell
 UKHL 37,  4 All ER 289,  1 WLR 2241
House of Lords, Bailii
Criminal Justice Act 1988 97
England and Wales
Cited – United States Government v Montgomery and Another HL 6-Feb-2001
An English court had power to make a restraining order against the disposal of assets pending an application for confiscation pursuant to a US order. This applied even if the US original judgment predated the date on which the US was added to the . .
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 . .
Cited – Soering v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989
(Plenary Court) The applicant was held in prison in the UK, pending extradition to the US to face allegations of murder, for which he faced the risk of the death sentence, which would be unlawful in the UK. If extradited, a representation would be . .
Cited – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
Cited – Regina v Sectretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Razgar etc HL 17-Jun-2004
The claimant resisted removal after failure of his claim for asylum, saying that this would have serious adverse consequences to his mental health, infringing his rights under article 8. He appealed the respondent’s certificate that his claim was . .
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 . .
Cited – Tomic v United Kingdom ECHR 14-Oct-2003
The applicant sought to resist his expulsion from the UK.
Held: ‘The Court does not exclude that an issue might exceptionally be raised under Article 6 by an expulsion decision in circumstances where the person being expelled has suffered or . .
Cited – Einhorn v France ECHR 16-Oct-2001
The applicant had resisted extradition from France: ‘ . . the Court reiterates that it cannot be ruled out that an issue might exceptionally be raised under article 6 of the Convention by an extradition decision in circumstances where the fugitive . .
Cited – Pellegrini v Italy ECHR 2002
The court considered the relationship between the Italian civil courts and the Ecclesiastical Court of the Rome Vicariat, a church court classed by the European Court as a court of the Vatican (properly the Holy See), a state which is not a party to . .
Cited – EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimant challenged the respondent’s decision to order the return of herself and her son to Lebanon.
Held: The test for whether a claimant’s rights would be infringed to such an extent as to prevent their return home was a strict one, but . .
Cited – Purdy, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another QBD 29-Oct-2008
The applicant suffered mutiple sclerosis and considered that she might wish to go abroad to end her life. She asked the court to make more clear the guidance provided by the Director as to whether her partner might be prosecuted under section 2(1) . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 January 2021; Ref: scu.199579