swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Extradition - From: 1960 To: 1969
This page lists 7 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.
Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, ex parte Caborn-Waterfield [1960] 2 QB 498
1960
QBD
Salmon J
Crime, Extradition
When an accused person is committed under the first paragraph of section 10 and surrendered to a foreign government he is surrendered for trial. Before that course is taken the magistrate has to be satisfied that a prima facie case is made out. When a convicted person is committed under the second paragraph of section 10 and surrendered to a foreign government he is surrendered to serve his sentence, in which case all that is necessary in the magistrates' court is to prove his conviction. The applicant had been wrongly treated as an accused person when he should, having regard to the final nature of the French judgment ultimately passed upon him, have been treated as a convicted person.
Extradition Act 1870
1 Citers
Zacharia v Republic of Cyprus and Another [1962] UKHL 5; [1962] 2 All ER 438; [1963] AC 634
1962
HL
Extradition
Fugitive Offenders Act 1881
[ Bailii ]
Schtraks v Government Of Israel And Others [1964] AC 556; [1962] 3 All ER 529; [1962] UKHL 4; [1962] 3 WLR 1013
6 Sep 1962
HL
Lord Reid, Viscount Radcliffe, Lord Evershed, Lord Jenkins and Lord Hodson
Extradition
Extradition -- Habeas corpus -- Nature of proceedings -- Whether further evidence not before chief magistrate when making committal order admissible -- Extradition Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 52), s. 3 (1).
Extradition -- Political offence -- Political character of offence connotes idea of asylum in England for political fugitive -- Fugitive must be at odds with state seeking extradition on issue connected with political control of state -- Extradition Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 52), s. 3 (1).
Extradition -- Territory -- Alleged crime committed in part of Jerusalem occupied by Israel -- De facto, but not de jure, authority of State of Israel over that part of Jerusalem recognised by United Kingdom government -- Whether extradition treaty of 1960 applied to that part of Jerusalem -- Israel (Extradition) Order, 1960 (S.I. 1960 No. 1660).
Extradition Act 1870 3(1)
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Armah v Government of Ghana and Another; HL 1968 - [1968] AC 192
Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Gardner [1968] 2 QB 399
1968
QBD
Lord Parker CJ, Edmund Davies LJ and Widgery J
Extradition
A person was not eligible for surrender to New Zealand, the requesting country, because the offences with which he was charged in New Zealand involved the obtaining of property by knowingly false representations as to future conduct. English criminal law did not proscribe the use of knowingly false representations as to future conduct in order to obtain property, but only the use of knowingly false representations as to present fact, the required double criminality did not exist.
1 Citers
Regina v Brixton Prison Governor, Ex Parte Rush [1969] 1 WLR 165
1969
QBD
Extradition
The court refused to return the applicant to Canada on a charge of conspiracy to defraud on the ground that the persons defrauded were all situated in the United States. The evidence did not disclose that the substantive crime contemplated by the alleged conspiracy to defraud was completed within Canada.
1 Citers
Atkinson v Government of the United States [1971] AC 197; [1969] 3 All ER 1317
1969
HL
Lord Reid, Lord Upjohn
Extradition, Natural Justice, Magistrates
The House heard an appeal from the magistrates' refusal to commit the accused in the course of extradition proceedings. Held: There is no abuse of process jurisdiction in extradition proceedings. There is no power to state a case in relation to committal proceedings.
Lord Reid said: "It is now well recognised that the court has power to expand procedure laid down by statute if that is necessary to prevent infringement of natural justice and is not plainly contrary to the intention of Parliament. There can be cases where it would clearly be contrary to natural justice to surrender a man although there is sufficient evidence to justify committal. Extradition may be either because the man is accused of an extradition crime or because he has been convicted in the foreign country of an extradition crime. It is not unknown for convictions to be obtained in a few foreign countries by improper means, and it would be intolerable if a man so convicted had to be surrendered. Parliament can never have so intended when the Act of 1980 was passed. But the Act does provide a safeguard. The Secretary of State always has power to refuse to surrender a man committed to prison by the magistrate. It appears to me that Parliament must have intended the Secretary of State to use that power whenever in his view it would be wrong, unjust or oppressive to surrender the man."
Lord Upjohn said: "Of course, in a most literal sense, in making an order of committal the magistrates are making a judicial order or determination; it is a judicial proceeding and it is an order or determination in the sense that in the result the accused then stands his trial . . But here there is no judicial determination of the rights of the parties in that sense; no 'rights' are decided. All that the committing magistrates have 'decided' or 'determined' is that there is prima facie case which should go before the adjudicating tribunal; they are acting judicially but they are not truly an adjudicating body at this stage, they are merely carrying out a step in the complex of proceedings which by our law precedes the trial of an indictable offence."
Extradition Act 1980
1 Citers
