The Commission considered the admissibility of a complaint that the United Kingdom would violate articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 if it extradited him to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
Held: The application was manifestly ill-founded: ‘The Commission considers that it is only in exceptional circumstances that the extradition of a person to face trial on charges of serious offences committed in the requesting state would be held to be an unjustified or disproportionate interference with the right to respect for family life.’
Citations:
(1997) 25 EHRR CD67, [1997] ECHR 106
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 8
Citing:
See Also – 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. . .
See Also – Regina v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Launder HL 13-Mar-1997
The question arose as to whether or not the decision of the Secretary of State to extradite the applicant to Hong Kong would have amounted to a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. Although the Convention was not at that time in force . .
See Also – In the Matter of Launder In the Matter of Extradition Act 1989 In the Matter of an Application for Bail Admn 21-May-1997
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Norris 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 . .
Cited – HH v Deputy Prosecutor of The Italian Republic, Genoa SC 20-Jun-2012
In each case the defendant sought to resist European Extradition Warrants saying that an order would be a disporportionate interference in their human right to family life. The Court asked whether its approach as set out in Norris, had to be amended . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Extradition
Updated: 14 August 2022; Ref: scu.401808