The claimant had been in prison pending removal after his resistance to a European Extradition Warrant had failed. Subsequent developments in the case against him in Spain suggested that the case against him might now fail. He sought a writ of habeas corpus.
Held: ‘the right approach to this issue is to ask whether, in the light of the discovery that the prosecution will not be able to rely on the evidence of telephone intercepts, the basis of the extradition order is undermined to such an extent that return (and continued detention prior to return) would now be unlawful. ‘ The order could not now stand.
Judges:
Smith LJ, Irwin J
Citations:
Times 06-Jun-2007, [2007] EWHC 939 (Admin), [2007] 3 WLR 621, [2007] 3 All ER 422
Links:
Statutes:
Extradition Act 2003, Framework Decision of the Council of European Union and the surrender procedures between Member States 2002 (2002/584/JHA).
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Hilali v Central Court of Criminal Proceedings Number 5 and Another Admn 16-Nov-2006
. .
Cited – Pinto v Governor of Brixton Prison and another Admn 2004
The Court was asked to grant Habeas Corpus on the ground that the European Arrest Warrant received in respect of the defendant was ‘fundamentally deficient’. At the initial hearing, the district judge had remanded the applicant in custody to await . .
Cited – Nikonovs v HM Prison Brixton and Republic of Latvia Admn 2-Nov-2005
The defendant argued that a failure to observe procedures under the Act resulted in his detention being unlawful and therefore susceptible to judicial review. He had not been brought before the appropriate court as soon as practicable after his . .
Cited – Office of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and others HL 17-Nov-2005
The defendant resisted extradition to Brussels saying that the offence had been committed in part in England. He had absconded and been convicted. Application was made for his return to serve his sentence. The offences associated with organisation . .
See Also – Hilali v The National Court, Madrid and Another (No 5) Admn 26-May-2006
Appeal against an extradition order for his extradition to Spain. The court was concerned with an issue of ‘extraneous circumstances’ arising under, respectively, section 6(1) of the 1989 Act and section 13 of the 2003 Act. . .
Cited by:
See Also – Hilali v Central Court of Criminal Proceedings National Court (Madrid No 5) Admn 15-Jun-2007
. .
Appeal from – Hilali, Re; Regina (Hilali) v Governor of Whitewall Prison and Another HL 30-Jan-2008
The applicant had been detained pending his extradition. He complained that that continued detention became unlawful after fundamantal changes in the case. The telephone intercepts which were the basis of the extradition had been ruled unlawful and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Extradition, Prisons
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.251468
