Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, ex parte Zezza: HL 1983

In the context of an application for extradition, where the conviction was a ‘conviction for contumacy’ that phrase is not defined. It does not have an ordinary meaning in the English language. ‘Contumacy’ indicates insubordination or disobedience in the face of the court, but the concept of a ‘conviction for contumacy’ is something with which our own law is not familiar. The words ‘conviction’ and ‘convicted’ are used in the Schedule with reference to fugitive criminals whose surrender is requested by a foreign state. The purpose of the definition is to ensure that a person convicted in contumacy in a foreign court is not to be treated as a convicted person but will be included in the category of an accused person for the purpose of the procedures set down. The definition assumes that there may be a conviction properly so described in some systems of foreign law that will make it necessary from time to time to draw this distinction.

Lord Roskill
[1983] 1 AC 46
Extradition Act 1870
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedIn re Guisto (application for a writ of Habeas Corpus) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice) HL 3-Apr-2003
The applicant challenged an order for his extradition to the US. He had been convicted in his absence having absconded from bail.
Held: He had been arrested and held on the basis that he was a convicted person, but the procedure should have . .
CitedCaldarelli v Court of Naples HL 30-Jul-2008
The appellant challenged his extradition saying that the European Arrest Warrant under which he was held wrongly said that he was convicted, whilst he said he was wanted for trial. He had been tried in his absence, and the judgment and sentence were . .
CitedKonecny v District Court In Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic SC 27-Feb-2019
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.180425