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: 1994 To: 1994
This page lists 9 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.
Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Hagan and Another Ind Summary, 17 January 1994
17 Jan 1994
QBD
Extradition
The Home Secretary has a discretion on t hegrant of a warrant for surrender. He was not bound by the evidence provided.
Regina v Secretary of State Home Department, ex parte Patel Times, 10 February 1994
10 Feb 1994
QBD
Extradition
The Minister is to allow for the applicants's rights and protection against delay by extradition.
Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Patel Ind Summary, 21 February 1994
21 Feb 1994
QBD
Extradition
A minister must take account of reasons for delay in extradition proceedings.
In Re Schmidt; HL 1-Jul-1994 - Times, 01 July 1994; Gazette, 02 November 1994; Independent, 06 July 1994; [1995] 1 AC 399
Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another Ex Parte Evans; HL 22-Jul-1994 - Times, 22 July 1994; Independent, 16 August 1994; [1994] 1 WLR 1006
HG v Switzerland 24698/94; Unreported, 6 September 1994
6 Sep 1994
ECHR
Human Rights, Extradition
The Commission considered the admissibility of a complaint by a Turkish national that extradition from Switzerland to Turkey to serve a sentence imposed for kidnapping and raping a 14 year old girl would infringe article 3 because of Turkish prison conditions, article 6 because his trial in Turkey had not been fair and article 8 because extradition would interfere with respect for his family life in Switzerland. The Commission held in para 2 that expulsion or extradition might "in exceptional circumstances" involve a violation of fundamental rights because of the serious fear of treatment contrary to article 2 or 3 in the requesting country. It further held that an issue might "exceptionally" be raised under article 6 where a fugitive had suffered or risked suffering "a flagrant denial of a fair trial" in the requesting state (emphases added). The Commission held that, on the facts, this was not such a case. It went on to reject the admissibility of the article 8 claim on the facts.
1 Citers
Re Evans Gazette, 07 October 1994; [1994] 1 WLR 1006
7 Oct 1994
HL
Lord Templeman
Extradition
Justices were not to hear evidence on extradition of effect law of requesting country. Countries which are parties to an extradition treaty or the like have a mutual interest in seeing that persons who commit crimes in one country do not escape trial or punishment by fleeing abroad. The House described the legislative scheme: "There are thus six steps in the extradition of a suspect from the United Kingdom. First, the foreign court must consider that a charge of serious crime has been properly laid against the suspect on the basis of information which justifies the issue of a warrant for his arrest. Secondly the administration of the foreign country must consider that the charge, the law of the foreign country and the circumstances justify a request for extradition in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. Thirdly, the foreign state must identify the suspect, authenticate the foreign warrant for his arrest, give particulars of the alleged conduct which constitutes the offence and produce a translation of the relevant foreign law which establishes the offence and makes it punishable by 12 months' imprisonment or more. Fourthly, the Secretary of State must satisfy himself that the request is in order. The Secretary of State must then satisfy himself that the equivalent conduct in the United Kingdom would constitute an offence under the law of the United Kingdom punishable by 12 months' imprisonment or more. The Secretary of State may then issue an authority to proceed and must identify and specify the relevant law of the United Kingdom. Fifthly, the metropolitan magistrate sitting as a court of committal must be satisfied, after he has heard representations, that the alleged conduct would constitute a serious offence in the foreign state and in the United Kingdom. In other words the magistrate must be satisfied that a charge of serious crime offensive in the foreign country and offensive in the United Kingdom has been properly laid against the accused. The suspect can then be committed and the magistrate must certify the offence against the law of the United Kingdom which would be constituted by his conduct. Sixthly, subject to any habeas corpus proceedings, the Secretary of State may enforce extradition."
European Convention on Extradition Order 1990 - Extradition Act 1989
1 Citers
In Re Forwell; QBD 25-Oct-1994 - Times, 25 October 1994
Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions Ex Parte Thom Times, 21 December 1994
21 Dec 1994
QBD
Extradition
The Court could not judicially review a decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to discontinue extradition proceedings because, when acting in such proceedings on behalf of the requesting state, the Director does not act as a prosecutor, but as a lawyer on behalf of a foreign client whose instructions it is generally bound to follow.
1 Citers