The applicant sought to challenge an order for his return to Hong Kong under the Act. He said that the ordnance under which he was to be tried, and anti-corruption statute, infringed his human rights by transferring to him the burden of proof. The Secretary of State argued that an English court should not impose its standards on other countries (per Drozd).
Held: Issues as to the fairness of a trial are best decided at the trial itself. The Hong Kong ordnance did include protections, and such offences might require special provisions. The Secretary’s decision to extradite was not to be faulted.
Judges:
Lord Justice Rose And Mr Justice Silber
Citations:
[2001] EWHC Admin 559
Links:
Statutes:
Extradition Act 1989 12(1), European Convention on Human Rights 6.2
Citing:
Cited – Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain ECHR 26-Jun-1992
The applicants complained of the unfairness of their trial in Andorra (which the Court held it had no jurisdiction to investigate) and of their detention in France, which was not found to violate article 5.
Held: Member states are obliged to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Extradition, Human Rights
Updated: 29 May 2022; Ref: scu.140350