VB and Others v Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Others: Admn 27 Mar 2014

The applicants challenged their extradition to Rwanda to stand trial for matters which would be an offence under the laws of both countries. Application was made for evidence to be given in secret and without disclosure to the requesting state.
Held: The Court discharged the appellants on the ground that the appellants faced a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice if returned to Rwanda to stand trial.

Moses LJ, Mitting J
[2014] EWHC 889 (Admin)
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromVB and Others v Westminster Magistrates SC 5-Nov-2014
Extraditions to follow normal open justice rules
Application was made by Rwanda for the extradition of four individuals to face crimes said to have been committed during their civil war. Witnesses were prepared to give evidence but only in private and not being seen by the representatives of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 02 December 2021; Ref: scu.523304

Polomski v Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Admn 4 Jul 2013

The court considered the new Tariff expired removal scheme, for foreign national prisoners serving an indeterminate sentence, either imprisonment for life or imprisonment for public protection, allowing those prisoners who are confirmed by the Home Office to be liable to removal from the United Kingdom to be removed from the country from the date their tariff expires, without reference to the Parole Board.

Cranston J
[2013] EWHC 1893 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Extradition

Updated: 15 November 2021; Ref: scu.512163

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 refuse their co-operation with another state if it emerges that a conviction ‘is the result of a flagrant denial of justice’, and ‘According to the Court’s case law, certain provisions of the Convention do have what one might call an indirect effect, even where they are not directly applicable. Thus, for example, a State may violate Articles 3 and/or 6 of the Convention by ordering a person to be extradited or deported to a country, whether or not a member state of the Convention, where he runs a real risk of suffering treatment contrary to those provisions of the Convention; other hypothetical cases of an indirect effect of certain provisions of the Convention are also quite conceivable. The same argument applies in reverse, so to speak; a contracting state may incur responsibility by reason of assisting in the enforcement of a foreign judgment, originating from a contracting or a non-contracting state, which has been obtained in conditions which constitute a breach of article 6, whether it is a civil or criminal judgment, and in the latter case whether it imposes a fine or a sentence of imprisonment.’

12747/87, (1992) 14 EHRR 745, [1992] ECHR 52
Worldlii, Bailii
European Conevtion on Human Rights 3
Human Rights
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Peter Elliot Admn 18-Jul-2001
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 . .
CitedRegina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
CitedGovernment of the United States of America v Barnette and Montgomery (No 2) HL 22-Jul-2004
The applicant sought to resist orders for the return to the US of what were alleged to be the proceeds (direct or indirect) of a fraud committed there. She had been in contempt of the court in the US and was a fugitive here. She complained that the . .
CitedRegina on the Application of B and others v Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office CA 18-Oct-2004
The applicant children had been detained in immigration camps in Australia. They escaped and sought refuge in the British High Commission in Melbourne and claimed diplomatic asylum. They claimed in damages after being returned to the authorities in . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Quark Fishing Limited HL 13-Oct-2005
The applicant had previously received licences to fish for Patagonian Toothfish off South Georgia. The defendant had instructed the issuer of the licence in such a way that it was not renewed. It now had to establish that its article 1 rights had . .
CitedRegina (on the Application of Mazin Mumaa Galteh Al-Skeini and Others) v The Secretary of State for Defence CA 21-Dec-2005
The claimants were dependants of Iraqi nationals killed in Iraq.
Held: The Military Police were operating when Britain was an occupying power. The question in each case was whether the Human Rights Act applied to the acts of the defendant. The . .
CitedLoizidou v Turkey ECHR 23-Mar-1995
(Preliminary objections) The ECHR considered the situation in northern Cyprus when it was asked as to Turkey’s preliminary objections to admissibility: ‘although Article 1 sets limits on the reach of the Convention, the concept of ‘jurisdiction’ . .
CitedWellington Regina, (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 10-Dec-2008
It was sought to extradite the defendant to face trial for two alleged murders. He now challenged the order for his extradition saying that his treatment in Missouri would amount to inhuman or degrading punishment in that if convicted he would face . .
CitedAl-Saadoon and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence Admn 19-Dec-2008
The two applicants had been detained by the armed forces in Iraq suspected of murder. They sought release before being transferred to the civilian authorities for trial saying that the trials would not be fair. The respondent denied that the . .
CitedSecretary of State for Defence v Smith, Regina (on the Application of) CA 18-May-2009
The soldier had died of heatstroke after exercises in Iraq. The Minister appealed against a finding that the circumstances of his death required an investigation compliant with Article 2 human rights, saying that he was not subject to such . .
CitedSmith, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) SC 30-Jun-2010
The deceased soldier died of heat exhaustion whilst on active service in Iraq. It was said that he was owed a duty under human rights laws, and that any coroner’s inquest should be a fuller one to satisfy the state’s duty under Article 2.
CitedSmith and Others v The Ministry of Defence SC 19-Jun-2013
The claimants were PRs of men who had died or were severely injured on active duty in Iraq being variously fired at by mistake by other coalition forces, or dying in vehicles attacked by roadside bombs. Appeals were heard against a finding that the . .
CitedIsmail, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 6-Jul-2016
The claimant ha been involved in the management of a company operating a ferry in Egypt. The claimant had been acquitted in Egypt of criminal liability, but then convicted in his absence on appeal, after submissions made on his behalf were . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Extradition

Leading Case

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.165203

Ozcelik: ECJ 10 Nov 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Article 8(1)(c) – Concept of ‘arrest warrant’ – Autonomous concept of EU law – National arrest warrant issued by a police service and confirmed by a public prosecutor for the purpose of criminal proceedings

[2016] WLR(D) 598, [2016] EUECJ C-453/16, ECLI:EU:C:2016:860
Bailii, WLRD
European

Extradition

Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.571280

Regina v Bartle and Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and Others, ex parte Pinochet Ugarte; Regina v Evans and Similar (No 3): HL 24 Mar 1999

An application to extradite a former head of state for an offence which was not at the time an offence under English law would fail, but could proceed in respect of allegations of acts after that time. No immunity was intended for heads of state. International law prohibiting torture has the character of jus cogens or a peremptory norm: ‘the jus cogens nature of the international crime of torture justifies states in taking universal jurisdiction over torture wherever committed. International law provides that offences jus cogens may be punished by any state because the offenders are ‘common enemies of all mankind and all nations have an equal interest in their apprehension and prosecution:’ Demjanjuk v Petrovsky (1985) 603 F.supp. 1468′ and Lord Browne-Wilkinson: ‘It is a basic principle of international law that one sovereign state (the forum state) does not adjudicate on the conduct of a foreign state. The foreign state is entitled to procedural immunity from the process of the forum state. This immunity extends to both criminal and civil liability. State immunity probably grew from the historical immunity of the person of the monarch. In any event, such personal immunity of a head of state persist to the present day; a head of state is entitled to the same immunity as the state itself’

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Goff of Chieveley
Gazette 28-Apr-1999, [1999] UKHL 147, [2000] 1 AC 147, [1999] 2 WLR 825, [1999] 2 All ER 97
House of Lords, Bailii
International Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984 (1990) Cm 1775, State Immunity Act 1978, Extradition Act 1989
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedHatch v Baez 1876
(United States) The plaintiff claimed that he had suffered injuries in the Dominican Republic as a result of acts done by the defendant in his official capacity of President of that Republic. The Court accepted that because the defendant was in New . .
CitedThe Republic of Ireland v The United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jan-1978
The UK lodged a derogation with the Court as regards its human rights obligations in Northern Ireland because of the need to control terroist activity. The Government of Ireland intervened. From August 1971 until December 1975 the UK authorities . .
CitedPlaya Larga (Owners of Cargo Lately Laden on Board) v I Congresso del Partido (Owners) HL 1983
The concept of absolute immunity for a Sovereign adopts a theory of restrictive immunity in so far as it concerns the activities of a State engaging in trade: (Lord Wilberforce) ‘It was argued by the [appellants] that even if the Republic of Cuba . .
CitedRegina v Sansom CACD 2-Jan-1991
The appellants had been charged with conspiracy contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The court rejected the argument that the principle laid down in Somchai referred only to the common law and that it could not be applied to . .
CitedAlcom Ltd v Republic of Colombia HL 1984
A bank account used to cover the day-to-day expenses of an Embassy, clearly served sovereign purposes and therefore was immune from enforcement measures. The Act of 1978 must be read against the background of customary international law current in . .
CitedDuke of Brunswick v The King of Hanover HL 31-Jul-1948
The Duke claimed that the King of Hanover had been involved in the removal of the Duke from his position as reigning Duke and in the maladministration of his estates.
Held: ‘A foreign Sovereign, coming into this country cannot be made . .
CitedIn re Piracy jure gentium PC 1934
Charges of piracy were brought against Chinese Nationals who had pursued and attacked a cargo junk. They were indicted in Hong Kong for the crime of piracy and found guilty subject to a question of law: ‘Whether an accused person may be convicted of . .
CitedAl-Adsani v Government of Kuwait and Others (No 2) CA 29-Mar-1996
The claimant alleged that he had suffered torture in a security prison in Kuwait, and he obtained leave to serve out of the jurisdiction on the Government of Kuwait, and on three individuals, one of whom at least was served, on the ground that he . .
CitedSomchai Liangsiriprasert v Government of the United States of America PC 1991
(Hong Kong) Application was made for the defendant’s extradition from Hong Kong to the USA. The question was whether a conspiracy entered into outside Hong Kong with the intention of committing the criminal offence of trafficking in drugs in Hong . .
CitedBuck v Attorney General CA 2-Jan-1965
By an action for declaratory relief, a challenge was offered to the validity of the Order in Council giving effect to the 1961 Act.
Held: The appeal failed. As a matter of international comity an English court should not grant declarations . .
CitedTrendtex Trading Corporation v Central Bank of Nigeria CA 1977
The court considered the developing international jurisdiction over commercial activities of state bodies which might enjoy state immunity, and sought to ascertain whether or not the Central Bank of Nigeria was entitled to immunity from suit.
Cited by:
CitedGoatley v The Governor of HM Prison Brixton and the Government of the Netherlands QBD 20-Jun-2002
The second respondent sought the extradition of the applicant for trial for drugs offences. He said that the alleged offences were extra terratorial to the second defendant, but that extradition was restricted to intra territorial offences.
CitedA, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, Mahmoud Abu Rideh Jamal Ajouaou v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 11-Aug-2004
The claimants had each been detained without trial for more than two years, being held as suspected terrorists. They were free leave to return to their own countries, but they feared for their lives if returned. They complained that the evidence . .
CitedJones and Milling, Olditch and Pritchard, and Richards v Gloucestershire Crown Prosecution Service CACD 21-Jul-2004
The court considered the extent to which the defendants in the proceedings can rely on their beliefs as to the unlawfulness of the United Kingdom’s actions in preparing for, declaring, and waging war in Iraq in 2003 in a defence to a charge of . .
CitedJones and Milling, Olditch and Pritchard, and Richards v Gloucestershire Crown Prosecution Service CACD 21-Jul-2004
The court considered the extent to which the defendants in the proceedings can rely on their beliefs as to the unlawfulness of the United Kingdom’s actions in preparing for, declaring, and waging war in Iraq in 2003 in a defence to a charge of . .
CitedJones v Ministry of Interior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabiya As Saudiya Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) and Another CA 28-Oct-2004
The claimants sought damages alleging torture by the respondent whilst held in custody in Saudi Arabia.
Held: Although the state enjoyed freedom from action, where the acts were ones of torture, and action could proceed against state officials . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Augusto Pinochet Ugarte Admn 27-May-1999
The applicant, the former president of Chile, sought to challenge an order allowing an application for his extradition to proceed. He said that once the matters deemed inadmissible had been excluded, there was insufficicient ground to allow the . .
CitedAziz v Republic of Yemen CA 17-Jun-2005
The claimant had made a claim for unfair dismissal. The defendant state had filed a defence instead of claiming state immunity. It then sought to assert such immunity. The claimant said the state had waived its immunity.
Held: Section 2(7) of . .
CitedKadre v Government of France and Another Admn 29-Jul-2005
The applicant sought habeas corpus to prevent his extradition to France.
Held: The English court was not to be concerned with facts underlying an extradition request. The laws of France were framed differently, but the facts alleged would . .
CitedAlamieyeseigha, Regina (on the Application Of) v Crown Prosecution Service Admn 25-Nov-2005
The defendant argued that as Governor and Chief Excecutive of Bayelsa State in Nigeria he had sovereign immunity. The Foreign Office had issued a certificate that the defendant was not a Head of States under the 1978 Act. The A-G of Bayelsa had . .
CitedProsecutor v Furundzija 1-Apr-1999
(International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia) The court described the main features of the law against torture: ‘There exists today universal revulsion against torture: as a USA Court put it in Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, ‘the torturer . .
CitedA and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) HL 8-Dec-2005
The applicants had been detained following the issue of certificates issued by the respondent that they posed a terrorist threat. They challenged the decisions of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission saying that evidence underlying the . .
CitedRegina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others HL 29-Mar-2006
Domestic Offence requires Domestic Defence
Each defendant sought to raise by way of defence of their otherwise criminal actions, the fact that they were attempting to prevent the commission by the government of the crime of waging an aggressive war in Iraq, and that their acts were . .
CitedJones v Ministry of Interior for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others HL 14-Jun-2006
The claimants said that they had been tortured by Saudi police when arrested on false charges. They sought damages, and appealed against an order denying jurisdiction over the defendants. They said that the allegation of torture allowed an exception . .
CitedHolland v Lampen-Wolfe HL 20-Jul-2000
The US established a base at Menwith Hill in Yorkshire, and provided educational services through its staff to staff families. The claimant a teacher employed at the base alleged that a report on her was defamatory. The defendant relied on state . .
CitedAziz v Aziz and others CA 11-Jul-2007
The claimant sought return of recordings and of money paid to the defendant through an alleged fraud or threats. She was the former wife of the Sultan of Brunei and head of state, who now sought an order requiring the court to protect his identity . .
CitedCorner House Research and Campaign Against Arms Trade, Regina (on the Application of) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office and Another Admn 10-Apr-2008
The defendant had had responsibility to investigate and if necessary prosecute a company suspected of serious offences of bribery and corruption in the conduct of contract negotiations. The investigation had been stopped, alledgedly at the . .
CitedMohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1) Admn 21-Aug-2008
The claimant had been detained by the US in Guantanamo Bay suspected of terrorist involvement. He sought to support his defence documents from the respondent which showed that the evidence to be relied on in the US courts had been obtained by . .
CitedEquality and Human Rights Commission v Prime Minister and Others Admn 3-Oct-2011
The defendant had published a set of guidelines for intelligence officers called upon to detain and interrogate suspects. The defendant said that the guidelines could only be tested against individual real life cases, and that the court should not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Crime

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.158999

Louca v A German Judicial Authority: SC 19 Nov 2009

The defendant resisted extradition saying that the European Arrest Warrant was defective in not revealing the existence of two earlier such warrants. He said that absence of such information would hinder a court which was concerned as to possible abuse.
Held: The appeal failed. The information was optional, and the information missing from the request was information known in any event to the defendant. The words ‘any other warrant’ in section 2(4) do refer to any domestic arrest warrant that may exist.
In an accusation case, the requirement in section 2(4)(b) of the 2003 Act for information consisting of ‘particulars of any other warrant issued in the category 1 territory for the person’s arrest in respect of the offence’ refers to ‘any domestic warrant on which the European arrest warrant is based, and not to any other European arrest warrant which may have been issued on the basis of any such domestic warrant’
The language of article 8.1 draws a distinction between a ‘European arrest warrant’ and in sub-paragraph (c) ‘an arrest warrant’, which indicates that the latter words refer to any domestic warrant.

Lord Hope, Deputy President, Lord Rodger, Lord Mance, Lord Collins, Lord Kerr
Times 24-Nov-2009, [2009] UKSC 4, [2010] 1 All ER 402, [2009] 1 WLR 2550, UKSC 2009/0047
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary
Extradition Act 2003 2(2)(a) 4(b), Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member states of the European Union (2002/584/JHA; OJ 2002 L190, pl)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Liverpool Stipendiary Magistrates ex parte Ellison QBD 1990
Bingham LJ said: ‘If any criminal court at any time has cause to suspect that a prosecutor may be manipulating or using the procedures of the court in order to oppress or unfairly to prejudice a defendant before the court, I have no doubt that it is . .
CitedCriminal proceedings against Pupino ECJ 16-Jun-2005
ECJ (Grand Chamber) Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Articles 34 EU and 35 EU – Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA – Standing of victims in criminal proceedings – Protection of vulnerable . .
Appeal fromLouca v Public Prosecutor In Bielefel, Germany Admn 27-Nov-2008
The defendant objected to the extradition order, saying that the European arrest warrant relied on did not disclose other warrants issued for the same offences.
Held: The Act required the warrant to be validated by the issuing national court. . .
CitedZakowski v Regional Court In Szczecin, Poland Admn 16-May-2008
Maurice Kay LJ said that section 2(6)(c) of the 2003 Act ‘should be construed as referring only to other EAWs issued in respect of the offence.’ . .
CitedDabas v High Court of Justice, Madrid HL 28-Feb-2007
The defendant sought to appeal his extradition to Spain to face terrorism charges. He complained that the certificate required under the 2003 Act could not be the European arrest warrant itself, that the offence did not satisfy the double . .
CitedJaso and others v Central Criminal Court No.2 Madrid Admn 14-Dec-2007
The Madrid Court had issued European Arrest Warrants against the three appellants on charges of membership of a criminal organisation and terrorism. The appellants had unsuccessfully challenged extradition before the District Judge on a large number . .

Cited by:
CitedAssange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority SC 30-May-2012
The defendant sought to resist his extradition under a European Arrest Warrant to Sweden to face charges of sexual assaults. He said that the prosecutor who sought the extradition was not a judicial authority within the Framework Decision.
CitedBucnys v Ministry of Justice SC 20-Nov-2013
The Court considered requests made by European Arrest Warrants for the surrender under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 of three persons wanted to serve sentences imposed upon their conviction in other member states of the European Union. The . .
CitedGoluchowski and SAS v District Court and Circuit Court In Poland SC 29-Jun-2016
The appellants challenged the effectiveness of European Arrest Warrants, saying that the requests were deficient in not providing adequate details of warrants issued in support of the decisions. They had been convicted and sentenced to terms of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, European

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.380325

Office of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and others: HL 17 Nov 2005

The defendant resisted extradition to Brussels saying that the offence had been committed in part in England. He had absconded and been convicted. Application was made for his return to serve his sentence. The offences associated with organisation of illegal immigration, fell within the European framework list, but section 65(2)(a) was not satisfied.
Held: ‘the conduct’ in section 65 means the conduct complained of or relied on in the warrant, and since some of the conduct complained of or relied on in the warrant occurred in the United Kingdom, the condition in subsection (2)(a) is not satisfied and subsection (2) is accordingly inapplicable. However 65(3) should not be read to require that all the conduct complained of had to take place in the territory, and nor did that subsection disallow extradtion where acts had taken place in the UK. The 2003 Act may be properly descibed not as extradition but as a system for enforcing warrants.
Lord Hope of Craighead: ‘The system has, of course, been designed to protect rights. Trust in its ability to provide that protection will be earned by a careful observance of the procedures that have been laid down …
But the liberty of the subject is at stake here, and generosity must be balanced against the rights of the persons who are sought to be removed under these procedures. They are entitled to expect the courts to see that the procedures are adhered to according to the requirements laid down in the statute.’

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Scott of Foscote, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell
[2006] 1 All ER 647, [2005] 3 WLR 1079, Times 18-Nov-2005, [2005] UKHL 67, [2006] 2 AC 1
House of Lords, Bailii
Council Framework Decision on a European arrest warrant: COM/2001/0522 final – CNS 2001/0215, Extradition Act 2003 65(2)(a)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromKing’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and Another Admn 20-Aug-2004
The prisoner had argued that the alleged offence underlying the application for his extradition to Belgium had been committed in part in England, and was therefore not extradictable. The prosecutor appealed.
Held: Part I of the 2003 Act was . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Stonehouse HL 1977
The defendant had been charged with attempting to obtain property by deception by fabricating his death by drowning in the sea off Miami in Florida. The final act alleged to constitute the offence occurred outside the jurisdiction of the English . .
CitedAbdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 14-Mar-2002
. .
CitedIn re Nielsen HL 1984
The House considered the role of the metropolitan magistrate under section 9 and 10 of the 1870 Act in the context of an application for extradition under the treaty between Denmark and the United Kingdom. At section 9 hearings it had been the . .
CitedGovernment of Belgium v Postlethwaite HL 1988
The court should not apply the strict canons which are appropriate to the construction of domestic legislation to extradition treaties. Extradition treaties, and extradition statutes, ought to be accorded a broad and generous construction so far as . .
CitedClements v HM Advocate 1991
An offence charged was a contravention of the 1971 Act. Observing that the criminal enterprise with which the appellants were concerned was the whole network or chain of supply, right up to the end of the chain where the harmful effects were to be . .
CitedIn Re Ismail (Application For Writ of Habeas Corpus) (On Appeal From A Divisional Court of The Queen’s Bench Division) HL 20-Aug-1998
The term ‘Accused person’ for the purposes of extradition can include a person yet to be charged. Allowance are to be made for foreign systems, and should recognise the purpose of the legislation and includes the desire to interview or where a . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Doot HL 1973
The defendants were charged with conspiracy to import dangerous drugs into the United Kingdom. Their counsel submitted that they could not be tried in England since the conspiracy had been formed abroad.
Held: There could be no breach of any . .
CitedSomchai Liangsiriprasert v Government of the United States of America PC 1991
(Hong Kong) Application was made for the defendant’s extradition from Hong Kong to the USA. The question was whether a conspiracy entered into outside Hong Kong with the intention of committing the criminal offence of trafficking in drugs in Hong . .
CitedHer Majesty’s Advocate v Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi and Al Amin Khalifa Fhimah HCJ 8-Dec-1999
The court considered whether the criminal complaint that the defendants had been part of a conspiracy to set a bomb aboard an airliner which exploded over Scotland, was justiciable in Scotland. Lord Sutherland: ‘Where however, a crime of the utmost . .
CitedBleta, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 9-Aug-2004
Extradition of the defendant was sought so as to serve a sentence of imprisonment.
Held: Use in the warrant of the actual words in the Act was not required. ‘Even if the actual words of the Act are not incorporated in the request, and even if . .

Cited by:
CitedKuprevicius v Government of Lithuania QBD 18-May-2006
The claimant challenged his extradition saying that the arrest warrant had not explicitly alleged, as required, that he was ‘unlawfully at large’.
Held: The statement could be inferred where the circumstances properly allowed that. . .
CitedVon Der Pahlen v Government of Austria Admn 27-Jun-2006
The defendant resisted extradition to Austria saying that the warrant was defective. The claimant said that generalised charges were sufficient.
Held: ‘The language of section 2(4)(c) is not obscure and, in my judgment, it should be given its . .
CitedMcKinnon v USA and Another Admn 3-Apr-2007
The defendant appealed an order for his extradition. He had used his computer in London to access remotely defence and other government computers in the USA, and deleted files and copied others onto his own computer. He had been offered a deal if he . .
CitedDabas v High Court of Justice, Madrid HL 28-Feb-2007
The defendant sought to appeal his extradition to Spain to face terrorism charges. He complained that the certificate required under the 2003 Act could not be the European arrest warrant itself, that the offence did not satisfy the double . .
CitedHilali v Governor of HMP Whitemoor and others Admn 25-Apr-2007
The claimant had been in prison pending removal after his resistance to a European Extradition Warrant had failed. Subsequent developments in the case against him in Spain suggested that the case against him might now fail. He sought a writ of . .
CitedKrzyzowski v Circuit Court In Gliwice, Poland Admn 23-Nov-2007
Extradition of the defendant to Poland was sought, the court saying he had fled his trial for burglaries in 1999. The defendant argued that his extradition would now be unfair.
Held: The judge was right to hold that his ruling of deliberate . .
CitedHilali, Re; Regina (Hilali) v Governor of Whitewall Prison and Another HL 30-Jan-2008
The applicant had been detained pending his extradition. He complained that that continued detention became unlawful after fundamantal changes in the case. The telephone intercepts which were the basis of the extradition had been ruled unlawful and . .
CitedPilecki v Circuit Court of Legnica, Poland HL 6-Feb-2008
The defendant appealed against an extradition order made under a European Arrest Warrant to ensure that he served a sentence of imprisonment in Poland. The warrant was in respect of several sentences, some of which were for more and some for less . .
CitedNorris 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 . .
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 . .
CitedBH and Another v The Lord Advocate and Another SC 20-Jun-2012
The appellants wished to resist their extradition to the US to face criminal charges for drugs. As a married couple that said that the extraditions would interfere with their children’s rights to family life.
Held: The appeals against . .
CitedZakrzewski v The Regional Court In Lodz, Poland SC 23-Jan-2013
The appellant was subject to an extradition request. He objected that the request involved an aggregation of sentences and that this did not meet the requirement sof the 2003 Act. He had been arrested under the arrest warrant, but during his trial . .
CitedBucnys v Ministry of Justice SC 20-Nov-2013
The Court considered requests made by European Arrest Warrants for the surrender under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 of three persons wanted to serve sentences imposed upon their conviction in other member states of the European Union. The . .
CitedGoluchowski and SAS v District Court and Circuit Court In Poland SC 29-Jun-2016
The appellants challenged the effectiveness of European Arrest Warrants, saying that the requests were deficient in not providing adequate details of warrants issued in support of the decisions. They had been convicted and sentenced to terms of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.235069

Regina v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis, ex parte Rottman: HL 16 May 2002

The defendant had been arrested under an extradition warrant issued under the Act. The police had searched his premises, and found further evidence which was used to support the application for extradition. He challenged the collection and admission of the evidence which was outside the scope of the 1984 Act.
Held: The 1984 Act did not replace entirely the common law powers of the police in collecting evidence. Common law had allowed a police officer exercising an arrest warrant also to search the premises in which he was found. The 1984 Act itself did not create powers capable of being used in this way. The sections were confined to domestic offences. The common law powers remained for international offences.
Hutton L said: ‘It is a well established principle that a rule of the common law is not extinguished by a statute unless the statute makes this clear by express provision or by clear implication.’

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Times 21-May-2002, [2002] UKHL 20, [2002] 2 AC 692, [2002] ACD 69, [2002] 2 WLR 1315, [2002] 2 All ER 865, [2002] HRLR 32, 12 BHRC 329
House of Lords, Bailii
Extradition Act 1989 8, Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 18 19
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedGhani v Jones CA 1970
The court was asked as to the powers of the police to retain objects taken and impounded.
Held: The privacy and possessions of an individual were not to be invaded except for the most compelling reasons.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘Balancing . .
CitedRegina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex Parte Osman QBD 30-Mar-1988
The applicant had been committed to prison pending extradition proceedings brought by Hong Kong alleging substantial fraud. He challenged the committal on the grounds that since the allegations involved transmission of funds over international . .
Appeal fromRegina (Michael Rottman) v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis and Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 24-Jul-2001
There is no residual common law power of entry for police to enter into premises to execute a search without first obtaining a warrant, beyond that contained in the Act. The Act was intended to provide a complete statement of the powers of entry for . .
CitedEntick v Carrington KBD 1765
The Property of Every Man is Sacred
The King’s Messengers entered the plaintiff’s house and seized his papers under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State, a government minister.
Held: The common law does not recognise interests of state as a justification for allowing what . .

Cited by:
AppliedRegina (Hewitson) v Chief Constable of Dorset Police and another QBD 18-Dec-2003
The claimant had been arrested under an extradition warrant. He complained that the police took the opportunity to search his girflriend’s nearby flat. The police responded that the search was conducted under a common law power of search attached to . .
CitedDurant v Financial Services Authority CA 8-Dec-2003
The appellant had been unsuccessful in litigation against his former bank. The Financial Services Authority had subsequently investigated his complaint against the bank. Using section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, he requested disclosure of his . .
Appealed toRegina (Michael Rottman) v Commissioner of Police for Metropolis and Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 24-Jul-2001
There is no residual common law power of entry for police to enter into premises to execute a search without first obtaining a warrant, beyond that contained in the Act. The Act was intended to provide a complete statement of the powers of entry for . .
CitedGreene v Associated Newspapers Ltd CA 5-Nov-2004
The claimant appealed against refusal of an order restraining publication by the respondent of an article about her. She said that it was based upon an email falsely attributed to her.
Held: ‘in an action for defamation a court will not impose . .
CitedRegina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others HL 29-Mar-2006
Domestic Offence requires Domestic Defence
Each defendant sought to raise by way of defence of their otherwise criminal actions, the fact that they were attempting to prevent the commission by the government of the crime of waging an aggressive war in Iraq, and that their acts were . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Extradition, Constitutional

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.170324

Regina v O’Brien: SC 2 Apr 2014

The court considered how to apply the rule that an extradition may only be for trial on matters committed before the extradition if they have been the basis of the request to a defendant’s commission of contempt of court after conviction. After being subject to proceedings anticipating a prosecution for large scale financial fraud, the defendant had fled to the US. He was then found guilty of contempt. On his extradition, he objected to the prosecution for contempt, saying that it was subject to the specialty rule.
Held: His appeal failed. Section 151A did not apply directly, and reading the Act as a whole, conduct must be criminal offence under the jurisdiction of the state requesting extradition. There was a significant distinction between civil and criminal contempt. The first derives from the court’s inherent power to ensure obedience to court orders. Criminal contempt is a serious interference with the administration of justice. A hypothetical person obtaining a finding of contempt whilst the contemnor was abroad would not be prevented from pursuing his committal on his return. The director of the Serious Fraud Office would have no less ability. Mr O’Brien’s contempt was civil, and his committal was not barred by the specialty principle.

Lord Mance, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson
[2014] UKSC 23, [2014] Lloyd’s Rep FC 401, [2014] 2 WLR 902, [2014] 2 All ER 798, [2014] WLR(D) 151, UKSC 2012/0143
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary
Extradition Act 2003 151A, Administration of Justice Act 1960 13
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegina v Seddon CACD 10-Mar-2009
The court considered the concept of specialty with extradition proceedings. Hughes LJ VP said: ‘Extradition is a process involving agreement between Sovereign States. The requesting State has no power to send its policemen into the requested State . .
See AlsoOB v The Director of The Serious Fraud Office CACD 2-May-2012
The court considered an application by the defendant for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, noting that section 13 of the 1960 Act did not provide for such a right after the 2006 Act.
Held: The words could not themselves be construed to . .
Appeal fromOB v The Director of The Serious Fraud Office CACD 1-Feb-2012
The court was asked whether a breach of an order under section 41 of the 2002 Act was a civil or a criminal contempt of court. The defendant had fled to the US to avoid complying with restraint orders on being investigated for financial fraud. He . .
CitedHome Office v Hariette Harman HL 11-Feb-1982
The defendant had permitted a journalist to see documents revealed to her as in her capacity as a solicitor in the course of proceedings.
Held: The documents were disclosed under an obligation to use them for the instant case only. That rule . .
CitedAttorney-General v Times Newspapers Ltd HL 1991
Injunctions had been granted to preserve the status quo in proceedings brought to prevent the publication of the book ‘Spycatcher’. The defendants published extracts, and now appealed a finding that they had acted in contempt.
Held: The . .

Cited by:
CitedCommissioner of Police of The Metropolis v DSD and Another SC 21-Feb-2018
Two claimants had each been sexually assaulted by a later notorious, multiple rapist. Each had made complaints to police about their assaults but said that no effective steps had been taken to investigate the serious complaints.
Held: The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.523423

Poltorak: ECJ 10 Nov 2016

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Article 1(1) – Concept of ‘judicial decision’ – Article 6(1) – Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ – European arrest warrant issued by the Rikspolisstyrelsen (National Police Board, Sweden) with a view to executing a custodial sentence

ECLI:EU:C:2016:858, [2016] EUECJ C-452/16, [2016] WLR(D) 599
Bailii, WLRD
Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA
European

Extradition

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.571282

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 be wrong in principle to decide that it was: ‘The common law recognised that an agreement in restraint of trade might be unreasonable in the public interest, and in such cases the agreement would be held to be void and unenforceable. But unless there were aggravating features such as fraud, misrepresentation, violence, intimidation or inducement of a breach of contract, such agreements were not actionable or indictable.’ and ‘the wider construction should prevail. In short, the conduct test should be applied consistently throughout the 2003 Act, the conduct relevant under Part 2 of the Act being that described in the documents constituting the request (the equivalent of the arrest warrant under Part 1), ignoring in both cases mere narrative background but taking account of such allegations as are relevant to the description of the corresponding United Kingdom offence. ‘
Lord Bingham of Cornhill said: ‘The common law recognised that an agreement in restraint of trade might be unreasonable in the public interest, and in such cases the agreement would be held to be void and unenforceable. But unless there were aggravating features such as fraud, misrepresentation, violence, intimidation or inducement of a breach of contract, such agreements were not actionable or indictable.’

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[2008] UKHL 16, [2008] 2 All ER 1103, [2008] 2 WLR 673
Bailii, HL
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromNorris v United States of America and others; (Goldshield Group plc intervening) Admn 25-Jan-2007
The defendant was the former chief executive of a company manufacturing carbon products internationally. His extradition to the US was sought on the basis that he had conspired in a dishonest price-fixing conspiracy.
Held: The secrecy of such . .
CitedJones v North 1875
Four parties were invited to tender for the supply of stone to a public authority. They agreed that one would buy stone from the others and submit the lowest tender, two parties were to submit a higher tender and the fourth party was to submit no . .
CitedMogul Steamship Company Limited v McGregor Gow and Co QBD 10-Aug-1885
Ship owners formed themselves into an association to protect their trading interests which then caused damage to rival ship owners. The plaintiffs complained about being kept out of the conference of shipowners trading between China and London.
CitedMogul Steamship Company Limited v McGregor Gow and Co CA 2-Jul-1889
Ship-owners formed an association which in this action others claimed to be a tortious conspiracy.
Held: There is a cause of action against the conspirators where there is an agreement which constitutes an indictable conspiracy and that . .
CitedNordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Company HL 1894
Exceptions to Freedom to Trade
The purchaser of the goodwill of a business sought to enforce a covenant in restraint of trade given by the seller.
Held: At common law a restraint of trade is prima facie contrary to public policy and void, unless it can be shown that the . .
CitedMogul Steamship Co Ltd v McGregor, Gow and Co HL 18-Dec-1891
An association of shipowners agreed to use various lawful means to dissuade customers from shipping their goods by the Mogul line.
Held: The agreement was lawful in the sense that it gave the Mogul Company no right to sue them. But (majority) . .
CitedAttorney General of the Commonwealth of Australia v Adelaide Steamship Company PC 1913
ag_adeleaidePC1913
There was an agreement between a group of colliery owners and a group of shipowners which was ancillary to an agreement between the colliery owners themselves. Each agreement was in restraint of trade.
Held: Lord Parker explained the doctrine . .
CitedNorth Western Salt Co Ltd v Electrolytic Alkali Co Ltd CA 1913
A restrictive agreement was challenged. Held (majority): the agreement was in restraint of trade, and so unenforceable, despite the defendants’ failure to plead this defence. Farwell LJ said: ‘In the present case, no circumstances in my opinion . .
CitedRawlings v General Trading Co CA 1921
Prospective bidders at an auction of military surplus stores agreed that only one should bid. Thus the defendant was to bid on their joint account, and the goods purchased were to be shared equally, each paying half the purchase price. The goods . .
CitedRawlings v General Trading Co 1920
Prospective bidders at an auction of military surplus stores had agreed that one should bid for their joint account, and the goods purchased were to be shared equally, each paying half the purchase price. The goods were knocked down to the . .
MentionedNorth Western Salt Co Ltd v Electrolytic Alkali Co Ltd HL 1914
Appeal allowed. The onus of demonstrating that a restraint is reasonable as between the interested parties is on the party alleging it to be so. The Court should be slow to strike down clauses freely negotiated between parties of equal bargaining . .
CitedBritish Airways Board v Laker Airways Limited HL 1985
The plaintiffs tried to restrain the defendant from pursuing an action in the US courts claiming that the plaintiffs had acted together in an unlawful conspiracy to undermine the defendant’s business.
Held: The action in the US were unlawful . .
CitedCrofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Company Limited v Veitch HL 15-Dec-1941
The plaintiffs sought an interdict against the respondents, a dockers’ union, who sought to impose an embargo on their tweeds as they passed through the port of Stornoway.
Held: A trade embargo was not tortious because the predominant purpose . .
CitedBritish Airways Board v Laker Airways Limited 1984
Laker began an action in the US seeking damages under the US Sherman and Clayton Acts against other airlines, including British Airways and British Caledonian Airways. They said that the other airlines had combined in a conspiracy to undermine . .
CitedBritish Airways Board v Laker Airways Limited CA 2-Jan-1984
The plaintiffs sought an injunction to restrain the defendant from pursuing an action in the US. That action alleged conspiracy by the plaintiffs to work together to put the defendant out of business on the North Atlantic route by anticompetitive . .
CitedRex v De Berenger 1814
The defendants were successfully prosecuted for conspiring by false rumours to raise the price of the public funds, causing loss to those who bought during this temporary rise. . .
CitedRegina v Lewis 1869
The defendants were convicted of conspiring to obtain money by divers false pretences and deceptive practices. . .
CitedDouglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar HL 2-May-2007
In Douglas, the claimants said that the defendants had interfered with their contract to provide exclusive photographs of their wedding to a competing magazine, by arranging for a third party to infiltrate and take and sell unauthorised photographs. . .
CitedScott v Brown, Doering, McNab and Co 1892
The plaintiff sought rescission of a contract for the purchase of shares, but failed because the contract had been entered into with the sole object of rigging the market by inducing the public to believe that there was a real market for the shares . .
CitedRegina v Rimmington; Regina v Goldstein HL 21-Jul-2005
Common Law – Public Nuisance – Extent
The House considered the elements of the common law offence of public nuisance. One defendant faced accusations of having sent racially offensive materials to individuals. The second was accused of sending an envelope including salt to a friend as a . .
CitedRegina v Jones (Margaret), Regina v Milling and others HL 29-Mar-2006
Domestic Offence requires Domestic Defence
Each defendant sought to raise by way of defence of their otherwise criminal actions, the fact that they were attempting to prevent the commission by the government of the crime of waging an aggressive war in Iraq, and that their acts were . .
CitedGovernment of the United States of America v McCaffery HL 1984
Extradition was sought under the Treaty between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the United States of America. It was an ‘exceptional accusation case’, because article III of the Treaty provides that, in addition to the . .
CitedIn re Nielsen HL 1984
The House considered the role of the metropolitan magistrate under section 9 and 10 of the 1870 Act in the context of an application for extradition under the treaty between Denmark and the United Kingdom. At section 9 hearings it had been the . .
CitedHashman and Harrup v The United Kingdom ECHR 25-Nov-1999
The defendants had been required to enter into a recognisance to be of good behaviour after disrupting a hunt by blowing of a hunting horn. They were found to have unlawfully caused danger to the dogs. Though there had been no breach of the peace, . .
CitedSW v The United Kingdom; CR v United Kingdom ECHR 22-Nov-1995
Criminal Law Change not retrospective
The law that marital rape was an offence, was not to be treated as retrospective despite being a common law change. The Court rejected complaints by two applicants who had been found guilty of raping their wives which was an undoubted extension of . .
CitedGovernment of the United States of America v McCaffery HL 1984
Extradition was sought under the Treaty between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the United States of America. It was an ‘exceptional accusation case’, because article III of the Treaty provides that, in addition to the . .
CitedGovernment of Canada v Aronson; Director of Public Prosecutions v Aronson HL 20-Jul-1989
The Canadian Government asked for the arrest of the defendant and for his return to Canada to face 78 allegations in Canada. The magistrate had determined that there was sufficient evidence in 66 cases. The detainee said that 69 offences were not . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex Parte Admn 3-Mar-1997
The section imposed the conduct test as set out in Nielsen, not the narrower approach adopted in Aronson. . .
CitedUnited States of America v McVey 19-Nov-1992
(Supreme Court of Canada) La Forest J said: ‘Consistent with the general principle that extradition laws should be liberally construed so as to achieve the purposes of the Treaty, a much less technical approach to extradition warrants and to common . .
CitedEdwards v Government of United States of America Admn 31-Jul-2007
Sedley LJ discussed and rejected the argument that ‘the analogue of the warrant is the request’ in extradition procedure and said: ‘Here, as in Dabas, the question is what is ‘the conduct’ which has to amount to an extradition offence? Is it the . .
CitedDabas v High Court of Justice, Madrid HL 28-Feb-2007
The defendant sought to appeal his extradition to Spain to face terrorism charges. He complained that the certificate required under the 2003 Act could not be the European arrest warrant itself, that the offence did not satisfy the double . .
CitedIn Re Ismail (Application For Writ of Habeas Corpus) (On Appeal From A Divisional Court of The Queen’s Bench Division) HL 20-Aug-1998
The term ‘Accused person’ for the purposes of extradition can include a person yet to be charged. Allowance are to be made for foreign systems, and should recognise the purpose of the legislation and includes the desire to interview or where a . .
CitedOffice of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas and others HL 17-Nov-2005
The defendant resisted extradition to Brussels saying that the offence had been committed in part in England. He had absconded and been convicted. Application was made for his return to serve his sentence. The offences associated with organisation . .
CitedBermingham and others v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office QBD 21-Feb-2006
Prosecution to protect defendant not available
The claimants faced extradition to the US. They said that the respondent had infringed their human rights by deciding not to prosecute them in the UK. There was no mutuality in the Act under which they were to be extradited.
Held: The Director . .
CitedRegina v Governor of Belmarsh Prison and Another, Ex Parte Gilligan; Regina v Governor of Exeter Prison and Another, Ex Parte Ellis HL 1-Dec-1999
Provided there was sufficient correspondence between the offence alleged to have taken place in Ireland and a serious offence in England, it was proper to order his return to Ireland under an Irish warrant. There is no extradition treaty between the . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department, ex parte Christian Norgren Admn 18-Feb-2000
The extradition of the defendant was requested by the US for breaches of insider dealing legislation. He claimed the issue of the order by the Home Secretary claiming it was not an extradition crime since at the time, the English equivalent offence . .
CitedRe Collins (No 3) 1905
(Canada) The United States sought to extradite Collins on a charge of perjury which was alleged to have taken place when he made an affidavit containing a wilfully false statement of fact in the course of an action of alimony in California. Many . .
CitedWellington, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 18-May-2007
In extradition proceedings the accused has no right to disclosure of evidence to the same extent and of the same kind which would be available in domestic proceedings.
Laws LJ said that a prison sentence without chance for parole might . .
CitedUnited States of America, Regina (on the Application of) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court Admn 6-Sep-2006
The defendant a serving prisoner sought an adjournment of his extradition to a time closer to the end of the sentence he was to serve in England.
Held: The court had sympathy with the argument that where the district judge is being invited to . .
CitedRegina v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex parte Narang; Union of India v Narang HL 1978
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 . .
CitedJenkins v United States of America; Benbow v United States of America Admn 25-May-2005
. .
CitedIn Re Khalid Al-Fawwaz (Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus) (on Appeal From a Divisional Court of the Queen’s Bench Division) HL 17-Dec-2001
The fact that a crime for which extradition was sought was extra-territorial one to the country making the request, was not enough to counter the application. The schedule required the person to be ‘accused or have been convicted of an extradition . .
CitedKakis v Government of the Republic of Cyprus HL 1978
Kakis’ extradition was sought by Cyprus in relation to an EOKA killing in April 1973. Although a warrant for Kakis’ arrest had been issued that very night, he had escaped into the mountains and remained hidden for 15 months. Subsequently, he settled . .

Cited by:
CitedA, K, M, Q and G v HM Treasury Admn 24-Apr-2008
The applicants were suspected of terrorist associations. Their bank accounts and similar had been frozen. They challenged the Order in Council under which the orders had been made without an opportunity for parliamentary challenge or approval.
CitedGG Plc and Others, Regina v; Regina v Goldshield Group plc and Others HL 12-Mar-2008
The defendants faced charges of conspiracy to fix and maintain the prices of prescription drugs.
Held: An indictment making such allegations must identify and particularise the aggravating acts which took such a conspiracy to the level of a . .
See AlsoNorris v Government of The United States of America and Another Admn 15-May-2009
. .
See AlsoNorris v Government of United States of America SC 24-Feb-2010
The defendant faced extradition to the USA on charges of the obstruction of justice. He challenged the extradition on the basis that it would interfere with his article 8 rights to family life, given that the offence was merely ancillary, the result . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.266166

In re Coppin: 1866

The French sought to extradite Coppin who had been convicted by a court in Paris in his absence in a conviction ‘par contumace’. That conviction might be annulled if he surrendered to the court’s jurisdiction, when he would be tried again for the offence with which he had been charged, in exactly the same way as if no proceedings had been taken against him.
Held: Coppin had to be treated as an accused person for extradition purposes. Such a trial would not differ from that of a party who was put on his trial without any previous condemnation: ‘But, if, in order that no part of the argument for the prisoner may be disregarded, I should assume that it has been established that the judgment par contumace does work some prejudice to the party upon the trial, either by reducing the amount of necessary proof, or by changing its character, or by making him liable to costs, how could that possibly take him out of the category of accused persons? He has ceased to be a person condemned, because his condemnation is annulled upon his appearance, and he is to take his trial for offences with which he stands charged. What better, I ought rather to say what other, description of him could be given than that of a person accused?’

Lord Chelmsford LC
(1866) LR 2 ChApp 47
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Extradition

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.180426

Grundza, intervening party – Krajska prokuratura Preso: ECJ 11 Jan 2017

Double criminality test for extradition

(Judgment) References for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2008/909/JHA – Article 7 – Condition of double criminality – Article 9 – Ground for non-recognition and non-enforcement based on the lack of double criminality – National of the executing State convicted in the issuing State for failure to comply with a decision issued by a public authority

[2017] WLR(D) 13, [2017] EUECJ C-289/15
Bailii, WLRD
European

Extradition

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.573248

Szelagowski v Regional Court of Piotrkow Trybunalski Poland: Admn 1 Apr 2011

A clerk was instructed, after filing a notice of appeal, to serve it on the Crown Prosecution Service with a letter on which he wrote the relevant Crown Office reference. The letter was expressed to cover the delivery of the appellant’s notice and grounds and to request a signature by way of receipt, and the Crown Prosecution Service gave such a receipt. But the clerk handed over the wrong accompanying package. Nothing in the package handed over or in the covering letter could be described as a notice of appeal.
Held: There was no valid appeal. Sullivan LJ observed that: ‘this case demonstrates how a rigid statutory time limit which cannot be extended under any circumstances can work injustice in practice, but the statutory scheme is very clear’.
Sullivan LJ, Collins J
[2011] EWHC 1033 (Admin)
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedHalligen v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 21-Jun-2011
The Home Secretary argued that the defendant’s attempted appeal against an extradition order was out of time and that accordingly the court had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal. Notice of service of the appeal was one day out of time.
Held: . .
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 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 October 2021; Ref: scu.441057

Kirkwood v The United Kingdom: ECHR 12 Mar 1984

(Admissibility – Commission) The claimant, a United States national, said that the proceedings for his extradition from the United Kingdom to the United States infringed article 6(3)(d), because he was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses against him in the United Kingdom.
Held: Although ‘the tasks of the Magistrates’ Court included the assessment of whether or not there was, on the basis of the evidence, the outline of a case to answer against the applicant’ and ‘[t]his necessarily involved a certain, limited, examination of the issues which would be decisive in the applicant’s ultim[at]e trial’, nevertheless, ‘these proceedings did not in themselves form part of the determination of the applicant’s guilt or innocence, which will be the subject of separate proceedings in the United States which may be expected to conform to standards of fairness equivalent to the requirements of article 6, including the presumption of innocence, notwithstanding the committal proceedings’. In these circumstances ‘the committal proceedings did not form part of or constitute the determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention’
Article 1 of the Convention: The undertaking given by High Contracting Parties in respect of everyone within their jurisdiction extends, in the Article 3 sphere, to a duty not to expose anyone to an irremediable situation of objective danger, even outside their jurisdiction.
Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention: Because Article 2 authorises capital punishment, pursuant to the law and a court sentence, this may create a long period of incertitude for the convicted person during the appeal proceedings in an elaborate judicial system. However, it cannot be held that this long period of uncertainty (the’death row phenomenon’) falls outside the notion of inhuman treatment (Article 3).
The terms of Article 2 do not support the contention that if a State were to fail to require binding assurances from the Stale requesting extradition that the death penalty would not be inflicted, this would constitute treatment- contrary to Article 3.
Article 3 of the Convention; Factors to be considered in assessing whether the long period of uncertainty experienced by the person condemned to death, during the appeal procedures (the ‘death row phenomenon’) amounts to inhuman treatment: the importance of the appeal system designed to protect the right to life, delays caused by the backlog of cases before the appeal courts, the possibility of a commutation of sentence by very reason of the duration of detention on ‘death row’.
Article 6 of the Convention: This provision does not apply to a court’s examination of an extradition request from a foreign State, even if the Court carries out an assessment of whether there is an outline of a criminal case to answer against the applicant.
10479/83, [1984] ECHR 19
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6(3)(d)
Human Rights
Cited by:
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: 04 June 2021; Ref: scu.451302

United States of America v Dempsey: Admn 6 Jul 2018

Crime – Common law offence – Perverting course of justice – Requirements of offence – Whether committed by lying to police
Gross LJ, William Davis J
[2018] EWHC 1724 (Admin), [2018] 1 WLR 110, [2018] WLR(D) 420
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedRegina v Metcalf, Denton, Foster 26-May-2021
(Crown Court at Manchester) A retired solicitor and two retired police officers faced trial charged with doing acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice. They were said to have proposed alterations to statements of police . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 June 2021; Ref: scu.619929

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Ejaz: CA 7 Dec 1993

The question was whether the Secretary of State was entitled to treat a woman, who had obtained naturalisation as the wife of a British citizen, as an illegal entrant on the basis that her husband later turned out not in fact to be a British citizen.
Held: The Secretary was not entitled to treat her citizenship as a nullity. A registered or naturalised citizen is a British citizen and his Citizenship certificate remains valid until it is withdrawn under a s40 order.
Stuart-Smith LJ: ‘A person who has acquired British citizenship by registration or certificate of naturalisation can . . be deprived of his citizenship as a result of conduct that led to the grant of registration or naturalisation, or because of certain conduct thereafter. Subsequent conduct is dealt with in section 40(3) and consists of (a) disloyalty or disaffection to the Queen, (b) trading or communicating with the enemy in time of war or (c) imprisonment for twelve months or more within five years of the date when the person became a British citizen. We are not concerned with this subsection.’
Stuart-Smith LJ
Independent 22-Dec-1993, Times 07-Dec-1993, [1994] 2 All ER 436, [1994] QB 496, [1994] 2 WLR 534
British Nationality Act 1981 40
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Naheed Ejaz QBD 23-Jul-1993
Using somebody else’s British passport, the applicant’s husband had masqueraded as a British citizen. The applicant had applied under section 6(2) of the 1981 Act for naturalisation as a British citizen on the ground that she was married to a . .

Cited by:
CitedHicks, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 13-Dec-2005
The claimant, an Australian, presently held by the US as a suspected terrorist in Guantanamo Bay sought to be registered as a British Citizen, saying he was entitled to registration as of right.
Held: The past behaviour of an applicant was not . .
CitedHysaj and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 21-Dec-2017
The court was asked whether the misrepresentations made by the appellants in their applications for United Kingdom citizenship made the grant of that citizenship a nullity, rather than rendering them liable to be deprived of that citizenship under . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2021; Ref: scu.87984

Kapri v The Lord Advocate for and On Behalf of The Court of First Instance Judicial District of Elbasan, Albania: HCJ 2 Feb 2012

The applicant objected to his proposed extradition to Albania, saying that he would not receive a fair trial. An examination of the reports disclosed that counsel for the Lord Advocate’s analysis of them was correct. None of the examples of the particular deficiencies in the judicial system impacted on circumstances in which the appellant would find himself if returned to face trial in Albania. The material which they contained was of a wholly general nature, and it contained nothing to suggest that any of the concerns identified would apply to his case. Lord Turnbull said: ‘Nothing within either report supports the appellant’s contention that ‘he’ would face an unfair trial on his return to Albania or in any way supports his contention that any retrial would lack the fundamental requirements of article 6. We note also that nothing in either report bears upon the question of whether any such retrial would comply with the particular requirements referred to in section 85(8) of the Act. Accordingly, in our view, the proposed new evidence contained in the reports prepared by Dr Bogdani and Ms Vickers is irrelevant to the ground of appeal in question and ought not to be admitted for this reason.’
(Lady Paton, Lord Turnbull and Lord Marnoch
[2012] ScotHC HCJAC – 17
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003
Cited by:
See AlsoKapri v The Lord Advocate Representing The Government of The Republic of Albania HCJ 1-Jun-2012
. .
At HCJKapri v The Lord Advocate (Representing The Government of The Republic of Albania) SC 10-Jul-2013
The Court was asked whether it would be compatible with the appellant’s Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 for the appellant, who is an Albanian national, to be extradited to Albania. On 7 April 2001, while he was in . .
See AlsoKapri v Her Majesty’s Advocate (For The Republic of Albania) HCJ 25-Apr-2014
. .
See AlsoKapri v Her Majesty’s Advocate, Re In The Application By (Albania) HCJ 17-Jun-2014
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 March 2021; Ref: scu.451013

Kane, Regina (on The Application of) v Trial Court No 5 Marbella, Spain: Admn 17 Mar 2011

The extradition court objected to the defendant’s appeal against extradition on the basis that it was not filed within time.
Held: Section 26(4) of the 2003 Act does not require that service of the Notice of Appeal on the Respondent must post date its filing in the court. Collins J said: ‘What matters for the purpose of giving the necessary information, as is made clear by what Lord Justice Stanley Burnton said in paragraph 14, is that the respondent should know that an appeal is being pursued.’ and ‘ It follows, as it seems to me from that, that a notice of appeal simply means what it says, namely that the individual has filled out the relevant form or document and has indicated on that that he is appealing. He must, of course, file it and he must serve a copy of it on the Crown Prosecution Service. But it does not follow – and in my judgment cannot follow – that it is necessary for the filing in the court to come before the service on the respondent. The respondent will know that it is said that he has filed a notice of appeal and thus the notice of appeal is pending . .
It follows, as it seems to me, also from that that the distinction that is sought to be drawn between a notice and a draft notice, is one which cannot be relevant or appropriate in the circumstances of an extradition appeal such as this. The notice is a notice of appeal. It does not matter that it has not yet been filed in court. True, I suppose, that it is possible that there may be variations. But those variations would only be in the contents of the notice. The fact that there is an appeal and that appeal is being commenced cannot be changed. That is the only fact that is essential for the purposes of the proper commencement of an appeal. Any failure to comply with the rules and what is contained in that notice – for example, grounds – can be dealt with by the court by making orders to require compliance because they are procedural irregularities which can be cured through CPR 3.10.
Thus I would construe the notice of appeal in section 26(4) to mean no more than notice that an appeal is being brought, not necessarily to extend to the grounds or the other contents of that notice. It seems to me at any other construction would mean that the full period of seven days was not given to an appellant.’
Collins J
[2011] EWHC 824 (Admin), [2012] 1 WLR 375
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003 2(4)(c)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRegional Court In Konin, Poland v Walerianczyk Admn 12-Aug-2010
In an appeal against an order for extradition, the service of a draft Notice of Appeal followed by the filing of the Notice of Appeal itself is not capable of complying with the requirement that Notice of Appeal be given within the permitted period. . .

Cited by:
Not on the pointHalligen v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 21-Jun-2011
The Home Secretary argued that the defendant’s attempted appeal against an extradition order was out of time and that accordingly the court had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal. Notice of service of the appeal was one day out of time.
Held: . .
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: 12 March 2021; Ref: scu.441056

HH, Regina (on The Application of) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court: Admn 11 May 2011

The defendant appealed against her extradition under a European Arrest Warrant, saying that an order would be a disproportionate interference in her, and family’s, human rights to a family life.
[2011] EWHC 1145 (Admin)
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8, Extradition Act 2003 14
Cited by:
Appeal fromHH v Deputy Prosecutor of The Italian Republic, Genoa SC 20-Jun-2012
In each case the defendant sought to resist European Extradition Warrants saying that an order would be a disporportionate interference in their human right to family life. The Court asked whether its approach as set out in Norris, had to be amended . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 March 2021; Ref: scu.439665

Kapri v The Lord Advocate Representing The Government of The Republic of Albania: HCJ 1 Jun 2012

[2012] ScotHC HCJAC – 84
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003
Scotland
Citing:
See AlsoKapri v The Lord Advocate for and On Behalf of The Court of First Instance Judicial District of Elbasan, Albania HCJ 2-Feb-2012
The applicant objected to his proposed extradition to Albania, saying that he would not receive a fair trial. An examination of the reports disclosed that counsel for the Lord Advocate’s analysis of them was correct. None of the examples of the . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromKapri v The Lord Advocate (Representing The Government of The Republic of Albania) SC 10-Jul-2013
The Court was asked whether it would be compatible with the appellant’s Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998 for the appellant, who is an Albanian national, to be extradited to Albania. On 7 April 2001, while he was in . .
See AlsoKapri v Her Majesty’s Advocate (For The Republic of Albania) HCJ 25-Apr-2014
. .
See AlsoKapri v Her Majesty’s Advocate, Re In The Application By (Albania) HCJ 17-Jun-2014
. .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 February 2021; Ref: scu.515061

Norris v Government of The United States of America and Another: Admn 15 May 2009

[2009] EWHC 995 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoNorris, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 24-Feb-2006
The claimant challenged his extradition to the US saying that it was wrong for the US to continue to be listed as a designated country for extradition under section 84.
Held: The fact that the US had not yet ratified the treaty under which a . .
See AlsoNorris v United States of America and others; (Goldshield Group plc intervening) Admn 25-Jan-2007
The defendant was the former chief executive of a company manufacturing carbon products internationally. His extradition to the US was sought on the basis that he had conspired in a dishonest price-fixing conspiracy.
Held: The secrecy of such . .
See AlsoNorris 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 by:
Appeal fromNorris v Government of United States of America SC 24-Feb-2010
The defendant faced extradition to the USA on charges of the obstruction of justice. He challenged the extradition on the basis that it would interfere with his article 8 rights to family life, given that the offence was merely ancillary, the result . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 February 2021; Ref: scu.377554