The House considered an extradition request.
Held: Lord Keith of Kinkel said it would be sufficient to establish the primary facts on the balance of probabilities and for the court to form an opinion upon the facts established. It was submitted that it would be unjust or oppressive to return the applicant because of the circumstances in which he came to be charged in India and the conduct of the Indian authorities in the extradition process both in India and the United Kingdom.
>The task for the court is to consider all the materials before it and then to decide whether or not the inference is to be drawn that return would be unjust or oppressive.
The words ‘having regard to all the circumstances’ enjoin the court to have ‘regard’ to all the circumstances which reasonably can have a bearing on the question whether ‘by reason of the passage of time’ an order to return would be unjust.
In extradition proceedings there is no proof of fact, in the proper sense of the word, and in certain cases there might be difficulty in deciding as to the primary facts upon which the court should proceed.
Viscount Dilhorne said: ‘I see nothing in the material before this House to lead to the conclusion that as a result of the passage of time it would be impossible for [the two accused] to obtain justice, and, that being so, I am unable to conclude that by reason of the passage of time their return would be unjust or oppressive.’
Judges:
Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Keith of Kinkel
Citations:
[1978] AC 247
Statutes:
Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 8(3)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Norris v United States of America and others HL 12-Mar-2008
The detainee appealed an order for extradition to the USA, saying that the offence (price-fixing) was not one known to English common law. The USA sought his extradition under the provisions of the Sherman Act.
Held: It was not, and it would . .
Cited – Gomes v Trinidad and Tobago HL 29-Apr-2009
Each appellant challenged orders for their extradition, saying that the delay had been too prolonged, and that detention in Trinidad’s appalling jails would be an infringement of their human rights.
Held: The House had to consider its own . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Extradition
Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.270747
