The appellant sought to persuade the House that in extradition proceedings the courts enjoyed a similar jurisdiction to that exercised in Bennett.
Held: The appeal failed. The High Court has no inherent power to intervene in extradition proceedings outside the terms of the Act. ‘Accordingly, the position now is that in extradition proceedings under the Act of 1989 the High Court has power to intervene only in the circumstances predicated by the Act and has no inherent Common Law supervisory power as contended for by the applicant. The principal safeguard for the subject of extradition proceedings therefore remains in the general discretion conferred upon the Secretary of State by Parliament in Section 12. ‘
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle said: ‘My Lords, I summarise my conclusions on this branch of the case thus. Atkinson v United States of America Government [1971] AC 197 decided that Parliament had excluded the jurisdiction of the courts to refuse to surrender a person under the 1870 Act when to do so would be unjust or oppressive. R v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex p Narang [1978] AC 247 emphasised that the statutory powers conferred upon the courts by the 1881 Act in relation to the Empire had been considerably restricted by section 8(3) of the 1967 Act. R v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex p Sinclair [1991] 2 AC 64 pointed out that the re-enactment of section 8(3) in section 11(3) of the Act of 1989 demonstrated that in relation to foreign countries no discretion to refuse the return of a foreign fugitive had previously existed. The dicta in Government of Australia v Harrod [1975] 1 WLR 745 and In re Osman, 28 February 1992 were obiter. R v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, Ex p Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42 related to the very different situation of the power to stay an English prosecution. Accordingly, the position now is that in extradition proceedings under the 1989 Act the High Court has power to intervene only in the circumstances predicated by the Act and has no inherent common law supervisory power as contended for by the applicant. The principal safeguard for the subject of extradition proceedings therefore remains in the general discretion conferred upon the Secretary of State by Parliament in section 12. It follows that the Divisional Court were correct in concluding that the decisions in Atkinson and Sinclair had not been affected by Bennett and should be followed.’
Judges:
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
Citations:
Times 01-Jul-1994, Gazette 02-Nov-1994, Independent 06-Jul-1994, [1995] 1 AC 399
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – Regina (Kashamu) v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another; Regina (Kashamu) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court; Regina (Makhlulif and Another) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court QBD 23-Nov-2001
Where a magistrates’ court heard an application for extradition, it was within its proper ambit to assess the lawfulness of the detention of the suspect in the light of the Human Rights Convention, but not to stray onto issues which were only for . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Launder Admn 6-Aug-1996
The exercise of a discretion on extradition is judicially reviewable in the same way as are other decisions. . .
Cited – Lukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland SC 23-May-2012
Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for the extradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Extradition
Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81615