Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Sinclair; Sinclair v Director of Public Prosecutions: HL 1991

The applicant had left the USA after conviction, but before his prison term commenced, and a warrant issued. Nine years later he was arrested in the UK, and extradition sought. He said that the extradition was time-barred under the Order. The magistrates, and divisional court rejected the argument saying his claim was an abuse of process.
Held: A magistrate hearing an extradition application had no power to determine an abuse of process application, his powers being limited to those set out in the Act. The article in the Order referred only to the commencement of a criminal prosecution, and did not refer to later stages of a prosecution which had itself been timeous. About 11(3) of the 1989 Act, ‘By this section a radical alteration has been made by giving to the High Court, in part at least, the same kind of discretion as to whether or not to discharge an applicant as the Secretary of State has in deciding whether or not to order a fugitive criminal to be returned to a requesting state. ‘
Lord Ackner
[1991] 2 AC 64, [1991] 2 All ER 366, [1991] CLY 1750
United States of America Extradition Order 1976 Av(1)(b), Extradition Act 1870 3 8 9 10, Extradition Act 1989 11(3)
England and Wales
AppliedAtkinson v Government of the United States HL 1969
The House heard an appeal from the magistrates’ refusal to commit the accused in the course of extradition proceedings.
Held: There is no abuse of process jurisdiction in extradition proceedings. There is no power to state a case in relation . .

Cited by:
CitedRegina (Kashamu) v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another; Regina (Kashamu) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court; Regina (Makhlulif and Another) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court QBD 23-Nov-2001
Where a magistrates’ court heard an application for extradition, it was within its proper ambit to assess the lawfulness of the detention of the suspect in the light of the Human Rights Convention, but not to stray onto issues which were only for . .
Re-affirmedRegina (Warda) v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another QBD 13-Feb-2002
When making an extradition order, the court did not have to consider each provision of the Act. Parliament did not intend for it to be part of the function of the district judge to occupy his time deciding whether the many and varied treaty . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Launder Admn 6-Aug-1996
The exercise of a discretion on extradition is judicially reviewable in the same way as are other decisions. . .
CitedRB (Algeria) and Another v Secretary of State for the Home Department; OO (Jordan) v Same; MT (Algeria) v Same HL 18-Feb-2009
Fairness of SIAC procedures
Each defendant was to be deported for fear of involvement in terrorist activities, but feared that if returned to their home countries, they would be tortured. The respondent had obtained re-assurances from the destination governments that this . .
CitedLukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland SC 23-May-2012
Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for the extradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 02 February 2021; Ref: scu.182206