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: 1985 To: 1989
This page lists 8 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.
Bonalumi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1985] QB 675; [1985] 1 All ER 797
1985
CA
Litigation Practice, Extradition
In the course of extradition proceedings, an order was obtained under the 1879 Act. The defendant sought to appeal against the order, and applied to the Court of Appeal. Held: The procedure under the 1879 Act was in the course of criminal proceedings (the eventual case in Sweden). The Court of Appeal Civil Division, by virtue of its constitution under the 1981 Act, had no jurisdiction in criminal matters, and could not hear the case.
Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879 9 - Supreme Court Act 1981 18(1)(a)
1 Cites
1 Citers
Regina v Bow Street Magistrates' Court ex parte Van der Holst; 1986 - [1986] 83 Cr App R 114
The Republic of Argentina v Mellino [1987] 1 SCR 536
1987
Lamer J
Commonwealth, Extradition
(Supreme Court of Canada) A principle underlying extradition proceedings is: "Our courts must assume that [the defendant] will be given a fair trial in the foreign country. Matters of due process generally are to be left for the courts to determine at the trial there as they would be if he were to be tried here. Attempts to pre-empt decisions on such matters, whether arising through delay or otherwise, would directly conflict with the principles of comity on which extradition is based."
1 Citers
Government of Belgium v Postlethwaite [1988] AC 924
1988
HL
Lord Bridge of Harwich
Extradition
The court should not apply the strict canons which are appropriate to the construction of domestic legislation to extradition treaties. Extradition treaties, and extradition statutes, ought to be accorded a broad and generous construction so far as the texts permits it in order to facilitate extradition.
Lord Bridge of Harwich said: "It must be remembered that the reciprocal rights and obligations which the high contracting parties confer and accept are intended to serve the purpose of bringing to justice those who are guilty of grave crimes committed in either of the contracting states. To apply to extradition treaties the strict canons appropriate to the construction of domestic legislation would often tend to defeat rather than to serve this purpose."
1 Citers
Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex Parte Osman; QBD 30-Mar-1988 - [1990] 1 WLR 277
Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, ex parte Kahan; QBD 1989 - [1989] QB 716
Soering v The United Kingdom; ECHR 7-Jul-1989 - 14038/88; (1989) 11 EHRR 439; [1989] ECHR 14; ECLI:CE:ECHR:1989:0707JUD001403888
Government of Canada v Aronson; Director of Public Prosecutions v Aronson [1990] 1 AC 579; [1989] 3 WLR 436; [1989] 2 All ER 1025; (1990) 90 Cr App R 199; [1989] UKHL 6; [1990] COD 27
20 Jul 1989
HL
Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Elwyn-Janes, Lord Griffiths, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Lowry
Extradition
The Canadian Government asked for the arrest of the defendant and for his return to Canada to face 78 allegations in Canada. The magistrate had determined that there was sufficient evidence in 66 cases. The detainee said that 69 offences were not 'relevant offences' within the Act. Held: The allegations did not disclose relevant offences, and the magistrate's order should be quashed. It was inappropriate for a magistrate to hear evidence to determine whether the extradite would face criminal charges for similar offences here.
Lord Lowry said: "The 'act or omission constituting the offence' cannot in my opinion mean 'the conduct, as proved by evidence, on which the charge is grounded,' because the evidence of such conduct could prove something more than what has been charged. In such a case the conduct proved would not be the act or omission constituting the offence of which the fugitive is accused in the Commonwealth country . . One may paraphrase the effect of section 3(1)(c) by asking: 'what is the essence of the Commonwealth offence? And would that be an offence against the law of the United Kingdom?' That is quite a different thing from looking at the course of conduct revealed by the evidence and asking whether that conduct (as distinct from the conduct of which the person is accused) would constitute an offence against the law of the United Kingdom."
Lord Bridge of Harwich considered what would happen if the test was, not as he though, constructive: "The issue arises when the Commonwealth offence may be established by particularising and proving ingredients A, B and C, but the nearest corresponding United Kingdom offence requires that the prosecution prove ingredients A, B, C and D. It is submitted for the Government of Canada . . . that if, in a particular case, the evidence relied on to prove the Commonwealth offence would be sufficient, if accepted, to establish ingredient D in addition to ingredients A, B and C, this is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 3(1)(c). Whether the extra ingredient necessary to prove the United Kingdom offence, over and above the ingredients which constitute the Commonwealth offence, is a physical or mental element, the wide construction leads to startling results. Two men are accused of the identical Commonwealth offence particularised against them in identical terms. The committing magistrate must decide whether the offence with which each is charged is a 'relevant offence': section 7(5). If the evidence establishes ingredients A, B and C against both men but ingredient D against the first man only, the magistrate must commit the first man, but not the second, to custody to await his return to the designated Commonwealth country. Yet so much of the evidence that is relied on to establish ingredient D . . . will be irrelevant to his trial for the Commonwealth offence after his return."
Fugitive Offenders Act 1967
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
