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: 2000 To: 2000
This page lists 14 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.
In Re Pinochet Ugarte; QBD 7-Jan-2000 - Gazette, 07 January 2000; Times, 16 February 2000
Peci v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another Times, 12 January 2000
12 Jan 2000
QBD
Extradition
Where a country applies to another for the extradition of a prisoner, and gives unequivocal guarantees that the prisoner will receive a fair trial, the good faith of the requesting state must be presumed. The prisoner having been convicted in his absence, the Swiss government undertook that if he applied within the 20 day time limit upon his return his conviction would be set aside, and he would be given a fair trial.
Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Kingdom of Belgium v Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Amnesty International Limited and Five Other Applicants [2000] EWHC Admin 293
15 Feb 2000
Admn
Extradition
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department, ex parte Christian Norgren Gazette, 16 March 2000; [2000] EWHC QB 143; [2000] EWHC Admin 296; [2000] 3 WLR 181; [2000] QB 817
18 Feb 2000
Admn
Lord Bingham CJ, Klevan J
Financial Services, Extradition, Crime
The extradition of the defendant was requested by the US for breaches of insider dealing legislation. He claimed the issue of the order by the Home Secretary claiming it was not an extradition crime since at the time, the English equivalent offence related only to dealing on the Stock Exchange in London. Held: The decision in issue would be that of the magistrate, not the Home Secretary. The notice was correct on its face and should stand.
Extradition Act 1989 - Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Government of Bulgaria and Governor of HMP Brixton ex parte Atanas Momtchilov Ratchev [2000] EWHC Admin 343
17 May 2000
Admn
Extradition
[ Bailii ]
Urru v Governor of HM Prison, Brixton Unreported, 22 May 2000; CO/4009/99
22 May 2000
Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ
Extradition
The prisoner resisted his extradition to Italy. The court examined documentation received from Italy: "That language may indicate that the applicant is already regarded as unlawfully at large and therefore liable to arrest which, if so, would of course support the government's case. But it may, as it seems to me, be authority to arrest him when he has been found and when he has been handed a copy of the order, which would suggest that he was not unlawfully at large until those steps had been accomplished. In the absence of expert evidence of Italian law I do not know how the magistrate could, or how we can, choose between those hypotheses."
1 Citers
Regina v Brixton Prison and Another, Ex Parte Burke; HL 16-Jun-2000 - Times, 16 June 2000; [2000] UKHL 35; 3 All ER 481; [2000] 3 WLR 33
Charron v Government of the United States of America Appeal No 53 of 1999; [2000] UKPC 25; [2000] 1 WLR 1793
26 Jun 2000
PC
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hutton, Lord Millett, Sir Patrick Russell, Mr. Justice Blanchard
Commonwealth, Extradition
PC The Bahamas
(Bahamas)
[ Bailii ] - [ PC ] - [ PC ]
Migliorelli v Government of Italy [2000] EWHC 558 (QB)
28 Jul 2000
QBD
Judge LJ, Morison J
Extradition
The Government of Italy sought the return of a fugitive who had been tried and convicted in his absence. The issue was whether the warrant should have been issued against the fugitive as a convicted person and not, as it had, as an accused person. Held. The warrant had been correctly issued since the trial process had not yet come to an end. Judge LJ said that the process in Italy was incomplete not only in relation to sentence but also conviction.
Extradition Act 1989
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Proulx, Governor of H M Prison Brixton; Government of Canada; Bow Street Magistrates' Court and Crown Prosecution Service ex parte Armand Michael Proulx; Admn 28-Jul-2000 - [2000] EWHC Admin 381
Regina v B (Extradition: Abuse of Process) Times, 17 October 2000
17 Oct 2000
CACD
Extradition, Human Rights, Judicial Review
An allegation of abuse of process did not constitute a special category of extradition to allow a judicial review of a decision not to grant a stay of those extradition proceedings. Article 8 could not be used to restrict such decisions. In any event the issues relating to the way in which the applicant had come to be brought within the jurisdiction, and the non-disclosure he alleged had been fully argued and considered on appeal already and rejected.
Lees v Government of Norway Times, 01 November 2000; Gazette, 02 November 2000
1 Nov 2000
QBD
Extradition
When considering an extradition application, a sentence which had been suspended in its operation was to be considered still as imprisonment in the context of asking what was the potential 'punishment awarded' The provisions of the Convention must be looked at in a broad and sensible way.
European Convention on Extradition 1991 Cmd 1762 Art 2.1 - European Convention on Extradition 1991 Cmd 1762 Art 2.1
Al-Fawwaz v Governor of Brixton Prison; QBD 20-Dec-2000 - Times, 20 December 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 424
Nadeem Akhtar Saifi v Governor of Brixton Prison and Union of India Times, 24 January 2001; [2000] EWHC Admin 437; [2000] EWHC QB 33; [2001] 1 WLR 1134
21 Dec 2000
Admn
Rose LJ and Newman J
Extradition, Human Rights
The applicant for habeas corpus resisted extradition to India on the ground, among others, that the prosecution relied on a statement obtained by torture and since retracted. Held: the court accepted the magistrate's judgment that fairness did not call for exclusion of the statement, but was clear that the common law and domestic statute law (s78 of the 1984 Act) gave effect to the intent of article 15 of the International Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984.
Where evidence was brought in the form of a translation into English, it was not admissible under the Extradition Act unless it was in a language capable of being understood by the witness giving that primary evidence. The witness had given his evidence in Hindi, and it had been translated, as he spoke, into English, and he had then being asked to sign the translation. That statement was not admissible. The actual words used by the witness were no longer available for challenge. The concept of the burden of proof had no application in the circumstances of challenging the effect on fairness of admitting the statement. When a court was asked to determine whether an accusation was in good faith, that question went not to the issue of the extradition proceedings themselves, but as to the accusation by the prosecution witness and the charge.
Extradition Act 1989 11(3) 27(1) - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78 - International Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984 (1990, Cm 1775) 15
1 Citers
[ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ]