Assurances for Extradition
Extradition of the defendant was sought to the US to face allegations of hacking into defence computers there. He said this would infringe his article 3 rights, saying that he suffered Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Held: The application failed. US authorities had given re-assurances as to his care. Judicial review of a prosecutorial decision is a highly exceptional remedy. Though the defendant’s actions had taken place within the UK, it was directed at the US. It was not for the court to decide where he should be prosecuted, and it would be wrong to sentence him here on the basis of what he admitted and not on the basis of what the US felt could be proved against him. The medical evidence did not go far enough to establish any threat to the defendant’s human rights by an extradition.
Stanley Burnton LJ, Wilkie J
[2009] EWHC 2021 (Admin)
Bailii, Bailii
Extradition Act 2003, European Convention on Human Rights 3
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – McKinnon v USA and Another Admn 3-Apr-2007
The defendant appealed an order for his extradition. He had used his computer in London to access remotely defence and other government computers in the USA, and deleted files and copied others onto his own computer. He had been offered a deal if he . .
See Also – McKinnon v The United States of America and Anotherr HL 30-Jul-2008
The appellant sought to avoid extradition to the US. He had hacked into 97 US government computers. He argued that the punishment he might expect in the US was completely disproportionate to the offence, and that he had been misled into entering . .
See Also – McKinnon v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 23-Jan-2009
. .
Cited – Wright v The Scottish Ministers SCS 27-May-2005
The Lord Ordinary said: ‘Extradition does not and should not depend upon the ability or otherwise of the requested state to undertake its own investigations with a view to prosecuting the case within its own jurisdiction. Such an approach would . .
Cited – Bermingham and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office QBD 21-Feb-2006
Prosecution to protect defendant not available
The claimants faced extradition to the US. They said that the respondent had infringed their human rights by deciding not to prosecute them in the UK. There was no mutuality in the Act under which they were to be extradited.
Held: The Director . .
Cited – Ahsan, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of Public Prosecutions; Tajik v Government of the United States of America Admn 10-Apr-2008
A request was made by the United States for extradition to answer charges for alleged terrorist offences. . .
Cited – N v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 5-May-2005
The applicant had sought asylum here, but her application was rejected. She was suffering advanced HIV/AIDS. With continued proper treatment she would survive several years. If returned to Uganda she would not receive that treatment and would not . .
Cited – J v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 24-May-2005
The applicant, a Tamil threatened to commit suicide if returned to Sri Lanka. It had been accepted by the Home Secretary that he suffered from post traumatic stress disorder and depression. The medical evidence was that ‘His prognosis (was) . .
Cited – Tozlukaya v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Apr-2006
Richards LJ said: ‘There is no dispute about the test to be applied by the Secretary of State in determining whether the respondent’s claim was ‘clearly unfounded’ within section 93(2) (b) of the 2002 Act. In relation to the same statutory language . .
Cited – AJ (Liberia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 15-Dec-2006
. .
Cited – RA (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 6-Nov-2008
The appellant challenged rejection of her asylum application made on human rights grounds. Medical evidence said that ‘There was a body of evidence before the senior immigration judge on the subject of the appellant’s mental health. It is sufficient . .
Cited – CN (Burundi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 19-Jun-2007
Increased risk of claimant committing suicide if returned home. . .
Cited – Soering v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989
(Plenary Court) The applicant was held in prison in the UK, pending extradition to the US to face allegations of murder, for which he faced the risk of the death sentence, which would be unlawful in the UK. If extradited, a representation would be . .
Cited – Wellington Regina, (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 10-Dec-2008
It was sought to extradite the defendant to face trial for two alleged murders. He now challenged the order for his extradition saying that his treatment in Missouri would amount to inhuman or degrading punishment in that if convicted he would face . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Extradition, Human Rights, Criminal Practice
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.368621
