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.
Rose LJ and Newman J
Times 24-Jan-2001,  EWHC Admin 437,  EWHC QB 33,  1 WLR 1134
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
England and Wales
Cited – Edgell v Glover, Garnett (Returning Officer) QBD 4-Nov-2003
The constituency had adopted an all postal ballot, resulting in a counted majority of one. One ballot paper’s confirmation of identity had not been signed.
Held: The function of the court, exercising its jurisdiction under section 48(1), is . .
Cited – A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 December 2020; Ref: scu.140254