Extradition was sought under the Treaty between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the United States of America. It was an ‘exceptional accusation case’, because article III of the Treaty provides that, in addition to the offences listed in the Schedule, extradition shall be granted if the offence is punishable under the laws of both parties by imprisonment or other form of detention for more than one year or by the death penalty and the offence constitutes a felony under the law of the United States of America. Article VII provides that among the documents that must accompany the request for extradition are the text, if any, of the law defining the offence and prescribing the maximum punishment and, if the requesting party is the United States of America, a statement that the offence constitutes a felony under the law of the United States of America. Uncontradicted affidavit evidence by qualified lawyers was produced to the metropolitan magistrate to show that these requirements were satisfied. There was no need for the House to consider whether the magistrate had jurisdiction to consider that evidence in order to decide whether the requirements of the Treaty had been satisfied.
Lord Diplock said: ‘[T]he test whether a person in respect of whom a warrant for his arrest had been issued in a foreign state for an offence alleged to have been committed in that state was liable to be surrendered as a fugitive criminal, was not: whether the offence specified in the foreign warrant of arrest as that for which it had been issued was substantially similar to a crime under English law falling within the list of offences described in Schedule 1 to the Extradition Act 1870, as currently amended (i.e., the so-called ‘double criminality’ test). The right test, as stated by the Divisional Court in the Nielsen case, was: whether the conduct of the accused, if it had been committed in England would have constituted a crime falling within one or more of the descriptions included in that list.’
Lord Diplock
[1984] 1 WLR 867, [1984] 2 All ER 570
Extradition Act 1870
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – In re Guisto (application for a writ of Habeas Corpus) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice) HL 3-Apr-2003
The applicant challenged an order for his extradition to the US. He had been convicted in his absence having absconded from bail.
Held: He had been arrested and held on the basis that he was a convicted person, but the procedure should have . .
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 – 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
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.180428
