Jaso and others v Central Criminal Court No.2 Madrid: Admn 14 Dec 2007

The Madrid Court had issued European Arrest Warrants against the three appellants on charges of membership of a criminal organisation and terrorism. The appellants had unsuccessfully challenged extradition before the District Judge on a large number of grounds. These included the contention that extradition would violate articles 3, 5, 6 and 8 of the Convention. The appellants said that, if extradited, they would be subject to incommunicado police detention for up to 5 days. The District Judge had applied an exceptionality test and this was attacked.
Held: Dyson LJ applied Huang, and said that there was no exceptionality test, though: ‘It is clear that great weight should be accorded to the legitimate aim of honouring extradition treaties made with other states. Thus, although it is wrong to apply an exceptionality test, in an extradition case there will have to be striking and unusual facts to lead to the conclusion that it is disproportionate to interfere with an extraditee’s article 8 rights.’


Dyson LJ


[2007] EWHC 2983 (Admin), [2008] 1 WLR 2798




Extradition Act 2003 21(3), European Convention on Human Rights 3 5 6 8


AppliedHuang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .

Cited by:

Incorrectly decidedLouca v Public Prosecutor In Bielefel, Germany Admn 27-Nov-2008
The defendant objected to the extradition order, saying that the European arrest warrant relied on did not disclose other warrants issued for the same offences.
Held: The Act required the warrant to be validated by the issuing national court. . .
CitedLouca v A German Judicial Authority SC 19-Nov-2009
The defendant resisted extradition saying that the European Arrest Warrant was defective in not revealing the existence of two earlier such warrants. He said that absence of such information would hinder a court which was concerned as to possible . .
CitedNorris v Government of United States of America SC 24-Feb-2010
The defendant faced extradition to the USA on charges of the obstruction of justice. He challenged the extradition on the basis that it would interfere with his article 8 rights to family life, given that the offence was merely ancillary, the result . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262174