The appellant had been convicted in the Czech Republic in his absence. He was entitled to a full retrial by virtue of section 306a of the Czech Penal code. A conviction EAW was issued for his surrender and his return was ordered. On behalf of the appellant it was argued that he was, in truth, an accused person and not a convicted person and that the warrant was, accordingly, invalid.
Held: Laws LJ, delivering the only judgment, noted the apparently conflicting authorities and observed of Bikar, Janiga and Ruzicka that all three were cases where the result arrived at was in fact in conformity with the requesting state’s position on the question whether the proposed extraditee was to be treated as accused or convicted. However, in his view there was no reason to hold that in the result any of those cases was wrongly decided on its facts. He considered it plain that Sonea was correctly decided.
Laws J
[2011] EWHC 264 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Konecny v District Court In Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic SC 27-Feb-2019
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Extradition
Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.431266
