Samuel Knowles, Junior v United States of America and Another: PC 24 Jul 2006

(The Bahamas) The respondent sought the extradition of the appellant to face drugs charges. The appellant said that if extradited, he would not receive a fair trial, having been declared publicly by the US President to be a drugs ‘kingpin’.
Held: It was wrong to suggest that the role of the Supreme Court on an application for habeas corpus in criminal proceedings (such as extradition) is to review the formal validity of an order for detention and not enquire into its substantial merits, but as the law applied at the time, there was no appeal for a prosecutor against the grant of habeas corpus.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hutton, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell
[2006] UKPC 38, [2007] 1 WLR 47
See AlsoCartwright and Knowles v The Superintendant of Her Majesty’s Prison and The Government of the United States of America PC 10-Feb-2004
PC (Bahamas) A warrant for extradition had been held to be void, and the prisoners released. It was argued that the US government had no right of appeal.
Held: Section 17(3) of the Court of Appeal Act was . .
CitedCox v Hakes HL 5-Aug-1890
No Appeal from Order granting Habeas Corpus
Where a person has been discharged from custody by an order of the High Court under a habeas corpus the Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal.
So held by Lord Halsbury L.C. and Lords Watson, Bramwell, Herschell, and . .
See AlsoKnowles and others v Superintendent of HM Prison Fox Hill and others PC 23-Mar-2005
(Bahamas) The claimants resisted requests for their extradition to the US on drugs charges. . .

Cited by:
CitedGibson v United States of America PC 23-Jul-2007
(The Bahamas) The US government sought the extradition of the appellant from the Bahamas on drugs charges. The warrants were found to be void, and the defendant released unconditionally, when the nmagistrate rejected evidence from an admitted . .
CitedRaissi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 14-Feb-2008
The claimant appealed against refusal of his request for judicial review of the defendant’s decision not to award him damages after his wrongful arrest and detention after he was wrongly suspected of involvement in terrorism. He had been discharged . .
CitedGomes 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 January 2021; Ref: scu.243387