The fact that a crime for which extradition was sought was extra-territorial one to the country making the request, was not enough to counter the application. The schedule required the person to be ‘accused or have been convicted of an extradition crime committed within the jurisdiction of any foreign state’ The reference to jurisdiction was not a reference to the territory of the state involved. There was a difference between the seeking of a fugitive criminal and of an ‘extradition crime’. ‘Within jurisdiction’ included but was wider than ‘in the territory’ of the foreign state, and the question was whether the conduct would be triable in the United States and if that conduct were transposed to England, would be triable in England. Many crimes are now international in nature, and Acts should not be interpreted restrictively so as to prevent their prosecution.
Anonymous evidence may be admissible in certain circumstances in extradition proceedings.
Judges:
Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Hutton, Lord Millett, Lord Scott of Foscote and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Citations:
Times 18-Dec-2001, [2001] UKHL 69, [2002] 2 WLR 101, [2002] 1 All ER 545, [2002] 1 AC 556
Links:
Statutes:
Extradition Act 1989 Sch 1 para 20, United States of America (Extradition) Order 1976 (1976 No 2144), United States of America (Extradition) (Amendment) Order (SI 1986 No 2020), Extradition Act 1870
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Al-Fawwaz v Governor of Brixton Prison QBD 20-Dec-2000
To found an extradition application, it was not sufficient that the crime should be listed as such by English law, but it was also necessary that it should be a crime of appropriate standing in the country to which extradition was sought. The crime . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Davis HL 18-Jun-2008
The defendant had been tried for the murder of two men by shooting them at a party. He was identified as the murderer by three witnesses who had been permitted to give evidence anonymously, from behind screens, because they had refused, out of fear, . .
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 – Bary and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 7-Aug-2009
The defendants resisted extradition to the US to face charges of conspiracy to murder US citizens, saying that as suspected terrorists the likely prison conditions in which they would be held would amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or . .
Cited – VB and Others v Westminster Magistrates SC 5-Nov-2014
Extraditions to follow normal open justice rules
Application was made by Rwanda for the extradition of four individuals to face crimes said to have been committed during their civil war. Witnesses were prepared to give evidence but only in private and not being seen by the representatives of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Extradition
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167066
