The defendant appealed against an order for his extradition to the USA to face extra-territorial terrorist charges.
Held: The court dismissed the appeal: ‘whether the appellant is a British citizen or not makes no difference to his relevant Article 6 rights. Our reasons are as follows: the ECtHR has stated many times that a decision of a national court on extradition or expulsion of an alien of that state does not constitute a ‘determination’ of either a ‘civil right’ or a ‘criminal charge’ for the purposes of Article 6(1) of the ECHR. However, in Halligen, the Supreme Court held that a British citizen enjoyed a ‘civil right’ to enter, remain in and leave the UK as he wished, subject to any parliamentary control by legislation. Thus, any proceedings in a UK court in which the extradition of a British citizen was sought was one which would ‘determine’ that ‘civil right’. Accordingly, that process had to be consistent with Article 6. In contrast to Halligen, the present case is not concerned with the appellant’s Article 6 rights in relation to any court proceedings in the UK; it is concerned with whether his extradition would lead to a breach of his Article 6 rights in any trial that would take place in the USA. The test, ie. whether there would be a ‘flagrant breach’ of those rights in relation to the US trial proceedings, is the same whether the appellant is a British citizen or not. He would have no better rights if he were declared to be a British citizen. Moreover, the appellant’s ability to rely on his other Convention rights, in particular those under Article 3, as a means of resisting extradition, is evidently the same whether or not he is a British citizen.’
Aitkens LJ, Simon J
[2014] EWHC 4167 (Admin)
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003 103(1), European Convention on Human Rights 6
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – B2 v Secretary of State for The Home Department (Deportation – Preliminary Issue – Allowed) SIAC 26-Jul-2012
The appellant was vietnamese by birth, but had later been granted British Citizenship. The Secretary of State came to seek to deprive him of that citizenship on conducive grounds for reasons of national security, and his deportation to Vietnam. The . .
See Also – B2 v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 24-May-2013
Appeal from the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in which the issue was whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department was entitled to deprive a British Citizen originating from Vietnam of British nationality following his alleged . .
Cited by:
Appeal From – Pham v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 25-Mar-2015
The court was asked: ‘whether the Secretary of State was precluded under the British Nationality Act 1981 from making an order depriving the appellant of British citizenship because to do so would render him stateless. This turns on whether (within . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Extradition, Human Rights
Updated: 24 December 2021; Ref: scu.539844
