The applicant resisted his extradition to Italy, saying that the provisions of Part 2 of the 2003 Act were engaged because the case started life before Italy ratified the Framework Decision and so adopted the EAW system. La Torre had been found guilty of extradition crimes in Italy and sentenced, but this first instance process was not final in the eye of Italian law.
Held: The section distinguished between an accused person and a person alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction. Since it is agreed that the accused is not alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction, it follows, in our view, that he has to be categorised as an accused person within the meaning of section 70(4)(a). The key consideration is the fact that the accused’s sentence is still subject to appeal and his conviction cannot be said to be final.
Judges:
Lord Justice Clerk And Lord Macfadyen And Lord Nimmo Smith
Citations:
[2006] ScotHC HCJAC – 56, 2008 JC 23, [2007] Eu LR 70, 2006 GWD 31-667, 2006 SCCR 503, 2006 SLT 989
Links:
Statutes:
Cited by:
See Also – La Torre v The Lord Advocate and Another HCJ 8-Nov-2006
The Lord Advocate had conceded that devolution minutes were competent in proceedings under the 2003 Act. . .
Cited – Caldarelli v The Court of Naples Admn 12-Jul-2007
The court certified a point of law for the House of Lords as follows: ‘Where a fugitive has been convicted and sentenced in his absence in the requesting state, but the conviction and sentence are neither final nor enforceable, may his case be . .
Cited – Caldarelli v Court of Naples HL 30-Jul-2008
The appellant challenged his extradition saying that the European Arrest Warrant under which he was held wrongly said that he was convicted, whilst he said he was wanted for trial. He had been tried in his absence, and the judgment and sentence were . .
Cited – BH and Another v The Lord Advocate and Another SC 20-Jun-2012
The appellants wished to resist their extradition to the US to face criminal charges for drugs. As a married couple that said that the extraditions would interfere with their children’s rights to family life.
Held: The appeals against . .
See Also – La Torre v Italy Admn 20-Jun-2007
Laws LJ considered the decision in Kakis and said: ‘All the circumstances must be considered in order to judge whether the unjust/oppressive test is met. Culpable delay on the part of the State may certainly colour that judgment and may sometimes be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Scotland, Crime, Extradition
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244044
