Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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: 2003 To: 2003

This page lists 22 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.

 
Mamatkulov and Abdurasulovic v Turkey Times, 13 March 2003; (2003) 14 BHRC 149; 46827/99; [2003] ECHR 68; 46951/99
6 Feb 2003
ECHR

Human Rights, Extradition
A retrospective complaint of extradition to Uzbekistan was made. The applicants sought to resist their extradition from Turkey to Uzbekistan, saying they would be tortured. Held: Convention states must comply with orders made by the European Court of Human Rights. Turkey had failed to comply with interim measures ordered and was in breach of its duties under art 34. It was not established that the applicants had been denied a fair trial, and accordingly no issue was held to arise under article 6(1) of the Convention.
European Convention on Human Rights 34
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bikar and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Governor of HM Prison Brixton [2003] EWHC 372 (Admin)
14 Feb 2003
Admn

Extradition

[ Bailii ]
 
Scuka v Governor of Hm Prison Brixton and Another [2003] EWHC 544 (Admin)
28 Feb 2003
Admn

Extradition

[ Bailii ]
 
Brahja v Governor of H M Prison Brixton [2003] EWHC 509 (Admin)
6 Mar 2003
Admn

Extradition

[ Bailii ]
 
F, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWHC 655 (Admin)
11 Mar 2003
Admn

Extradition

[ Bailii ]
 
Rottman v Governor of HMP Brixton and Another [2003] EWHC 496 (Admin)
14 Mar 2003
Admn

Extradition

[ Bailii ]
 
Warren, Regina (on the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another [2003] EWHC 1177 (Admin)
14 Mar 2003
Admn
Hale LJ
Extradition
Hale LJ said that it would not generally be unjust to send someone back to a country face a fair process to determine whether or not he is fit to face trial adding: "I accept that it may be wrong or oppressive to do so if the inevitable result will be that he will be found unfit. But even in those circumstances there may be countervailing considerations. For example, if there is the counterpart of our process in the other country, where a person may be found to have committed an act which would otherwise have been a serious crime, particularly if it were to be a crime of violence involving risk to the public, and if it would then be appropriate to detain the person for medical treatment, it would be in the public interest to enable that process to take place."
Extradition Act 1989
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
In re Guisto (application for a writ of Habeas Corpus) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty's High Court of Justice) [2003] UKHL 19; Times, 08 April 2003; Gazette, 12 June 2003; [2004] 1 AC 101; [2003] 2 All ER 647; [2003] 2 WLR 1089
3 Apr 2003
HL
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe
Crime, Extradition
The applicant challenged an order for his extradition to the US. He had been convicted in his absence having absconded from bail. Held: He had been arrested and held on the basis that he was a convicted person, but the procedure should have allowed that having been convicted in his absence, in contumacy, he should have been held on the basis that he was unconvicted. His detention was unlawful, and he was to be released.
Lord Hope said: "It is a fundamental point of principle that any use of the procedures that exist for depriving a person of his liberty must be carefully scrutinised."
Extradition Act 1989 - United States of America (Extradition) Order 1976 (SI 1976/2144)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ]
 
Brown and Another v Governor of Her Majesty's Prison Saughton [2003] EWHC 1260 (Admin)
9 May 2003
Admn

Extradition

[ Bailii ]
 
In re Togyer Times, 12 July 2003; [2003] EWHC 1418 (Admin)
4 Jun 2003
QBD
Lord Woolf, Goldring J
Extradition
The applicant had been arrested and resisted his extradition to the Czech Republic saying that the offence was so minor as not to justify extradition. Held: The offence was equivalent to obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception, with a value of £40.00. It was not a serious offence. However the court could also take into account other facts about the extraditee including his record. In this case the offence had been committed whilst he was released from a much longer sentence and on licence. That made the offence sufficiently serious to support extradition.
Extradition Act 1989 11
[ Bailii ]
 
Daly v Federal Republic of Germany [2003] EWHC 1838 (Admin)
25 Jun 2003
Admn

Extradition

[ Bailii ]
 
Godfrey v Governor of Hm Prison Brixton and Another [2003] EWHC 1752 (Admin)
2 Jul 2003
Admn

Extradition

[ Bailii ]
 
Horvath v Government of the Czech Republic [2003] EWHC 1836 (Admin)
7 Jul 2003
Admn

Extradition

[ Bailii ]
 
Ginova v Czech Republic [2003] EWHC 2187 (Admin)
23 Jul 2003
Admn

Extradition

[ Bailii ]
 
Osawe v Hm Prison Brixton [2003] EWHC 2140 (Admin)
28 Jul 2003
Admn

Extradition

Extradition Act 1989
[ Bailii ]

 
 Sutej v Governor of H M Prison Holloway and Another; Admn 31-Jul-2003 - [2003] EWHC 1940 (Admin)
 
Tiser v Governor of Hmp Brixton and Another [2003] EWHC 2699 (Admin)
28 Oct 2003
Admn

Extradition

[ Bailii ]
 
Woodcock v The Government of New Zealand [2003] EWHC 2668 (Admin); Times, 27 November 2003; [2004] 1 WLR 1979; [2004] 1 All ER 678
14 Nov 2003
QBD
The Right Honourable Lord Justice Simon Brown The Honourable Mr Justice Royce
Extradition
The applicant, a catholic priest, challenged his extradition for alleged offences of sexual abuse which had taken place in the 1980s, saying it would be an abuse now to prosecute him after such a delay. Held: The case of R v B was of a particular character and not of assistance to the applicant. The case did not involve a single applicant, and the case did not involve domestic law (though the New Zealand law was not dissimilar). Although the case was exceptional in the delay, there is no absolute rule to set any time limit, and the appeal failed. The approach in New Zealand appeared similar to our own. A stay on the ground of delay in our domestic courts is only properly granted when "there really is evidence of prejudice to the extent that a fair trial could not be held".
Extradition Act 1989 11(9)
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]

 
 Nolan v HM Prison Holloway and Another; Admn 14-Nov-2003 - [2003] EWHC 2709 (Admin)
 
Ozen v Republic of Germany [2003] EWHC 2851 (Admin)
18 Nov 2003
Admn

Extradition

[ Bailii ]

 
 Jaffar v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another; QBD 25-Nov-2003 - Times, 06 December 2003; [2003] EWHC 3077 (Admin)
 
Bryce-Richards v Attorney General of Jersey and Another [2003] EWHC 3365 (Admin)
19 Dec 2003
Admn

Extradition, Human Rights

Indictable Offences Act 1848
[ Bailii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.