Regina v Governor of Belmarsh Prison and Another Ex Parte Gilligan: QBD 20 Jan 1998

A magistrate ordering the transfer of a prisoner to Ireland must be satisfied that a sufficiently serious offence was alleged, but strict evidence was not required. As to the 1988 Act, the evidence must at least be admissible.

Citations:

Times 20-Jan-1998, [1998] EWHC Admin 6, [1998] I Cr App R 14

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 2(2), Criminal Justice Act 1988 823(1)

Cited by:

CitedLobban, Regina v CACD 7-May-2004
The defendant appealed his conviction. A witness statement had been read, but he had wanted to cross examine her. The court was satisfied that her refusal to give evidence in person was through fear.
Held: In making the decision, the judge had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.86721

Regina 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 two countries, but the system was properly recorded in the 1965 Act. There was no need for identicality of the offence alleged and the comparable English offence.

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Steyn Lord Cooke of Thorndon Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Clyde

Citations:

Times 24-Nov-1999, Gazette 01-Dec-1999, [1999] UKHL 46, [1999] 3 WLR 1244, [2000] 1 All ER 113, [2001] 1 AC 84

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 2(2)

Cited by:

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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, International

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85278

Regina v Bow Street Magistrates ex parte Government of the United States of America; In re Allison: HL 2 Sep 1999

A person within an organisation who was authorised to access some data on a computer system at a particular level, could exceed his authority by accessing data at a level outside that authority. The unauthorised access offence under the 1990 Act was not limited to access obtained by an outsider or hacker. A section 1 offence could be committed without the relevant intent being proved to be directed at particular data. A conspiracy to commit an offence under section 2 is extradictable.

Judges:

Lord Steyn, Lord Hutton, Lord Saville of Newdigate, Lord Hobhouse of Wood-borough, Lord Millett

Citations:

Times 02-Sep-1999, [1999] UKHL 31, [1999] ALL ER 1, [2000] 2 AC 216

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Computer Misuse Act 1990, Extradition Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Gilmore and Ogun Admn 6-Jun-1997
An ‘offence under the Act’ does not include a conspiracy to commit that offence for purposes of extradition proceedings. The court rejected an argument that the effect of the Act of 1989 was to free the Treaty from the constraints imposed by the . .
CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Bignell and Another QBD 6-Jun-1997
Policemen were convicted by the stipendiary magistrate of an offence under 1990 Act. They had requested a police computer operator to obtain information from the Police National Computer about the ownership and registration of two cars for their own . .
Not followedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Bignall Admn 16-May-1997
The defendant police officers had obtained information from the Police National Computer, but had used it for improper purposes.
Held: The prosecution should have taken place under the 1990 Act as unauthorised access, and had not been used . .

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Stanford CACD 1-Feb-2006
The defendant appealed his conviction for the unlawful interception of communications, saying that he was authorised to access the information he had obtained. He had instructed a junior employee to access emails by the use of an ID and password . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Crime, Extradition

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.85134

In 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 person is wanted to help with inquiries.
Lord Steyn said: ”accused’ in section 1 of the Act of 1989 is not a term of art. It is a question of fact in each case whether the person passes the threshold test of being an ‘accused’ person . . one is concerned with the contextual meaning of ‘accused’ in a statute intended to serve the purpose of bringing to justice those accused of serious crimes. There is a transnational interest in the achievement of this aim. Extradition treaties, and extradition statutes, ought, therefore, to be accorded a broad and generous construction so far as the text permits it in order to facilitate extradition.’

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Steyn, Lord Hutton

Citations:

Times 20-Aug-1998, Gazette 16-Sep-1998, [1998] 3 WLR 495, [1998] UKHL 32, [1999] 1 AC 320, [1998] 3 All ER 1007

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 1

Cited by:

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 . .
CitedRaissi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 22-Feb-2007
The claimant sought judicial review of a refusal to make an ex gratia payment for his imprisonment whilst successfully resisting extradition proceedings. Terrorist connections had been suggested, but the judge made an explicit finding that at no . .
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 . .
CitedMcKinnon v The United States of America and Anotherr HL 30-Jul-2008
The appellant sought to avoid extradition to the US. He had hacked into 97 US government computers. He argued that the punishment he might expect in the US was completely disproportionate to the offence, and that he had been misled into entering . .
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.

Extradition

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81949

Regina v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court ex parte Van der Holst: 1986

Citations:

[1986] 83 Cr App R 114

Cited by:

CitedEnander v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another Admn 16-Nov-2005
The claimant sought habeas corpus. The Swedish authorities had issued a European Arrest Warrant for his extradition. He submitted that the authority issuing the warrant in Sweden did not amount to a ‘judicial authority’ because it would not be so . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.539977

Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department: ex parte Chahal: QBD 5 Apr 1993

The Home Secretary need not consider any risk of torture as an issue separate from that of persecution, when considering making an order for deportation.

Citations:

Ind Summary 05-Apr-1993

Statutes:

Immigration Act 1971 3(5)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Chahal CA 27-Oct-1993
Chahal was a Sikh separatist leader who was refused asylum and whom the Secretary of State proposed to deport to India as a threat to national security here.
Held: The Home Secretary must balance the need to deport against against any threat . .
See AlsoChahal v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Nov-1996
Proper Reply Opportunity Required on Deportation
(Grand Chamber) The claimant was an Indian citizen who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in this country but whose activities as a Sikh separatist brought him to the notice of the authorities both in India and here. The Home Secretary of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Extradition

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.87941

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’

Judges:

Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Goff of Chieveley

Citations:

Gazette 28-Apr-1999, [1999] UKHL 147, [2000] 1 AC 147, [1999] 2 WLR 825, [1999] 2 All ER 97

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

International Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984 (1990) Cm 1775, State Immunity Act 1978, Extradition Act 1989

Jurisdiction:

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
Evidence from 3rd Party Torture Inadmissible
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 . .
CitedTaylor, Regina v SC 13-Nov-2019
(Redacted) The court was asked to consider the meaning of ‘torture’ from events in a rebellion in Liberia in 1990. The CACD certified the following point of law of general public importance: ‘What is the correct interpretation of the term ‘person . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Crime

Leading Case

Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.158999

Regina (Marais) v Governor of Brixton Prison and Another: QBD 30 Nov 2001

The process of extradition is not one itself involving the imposition of a criminal penalty, and therefore such proceedings were outside the ambit of the convention. The prisoner sought to challenge an extradition requested from South Africa, claiming an element of retrospectivity. The fact that at the time the offence was committed there was no extradition treaty wih South Africa did not create the situation where a heavier penalty was sought to be imposed than the penalty applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy and Mr Justice Pitchford

Citations:

Times 18-Dec-2001, Gazette 06-Feb-2002

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights art 5.1, Extradition Act 1989 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.167110

Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison and Others: QBD 12 Jul 2001

The applicant sought a writ of habeas corpus. He had been committed to prison pending extradition for murder to the USA. He argued that he should not be extradited because he would face a possible death penalty. The court refused the writ. The issue was not one to be faced at committal, but properly one to be addressed to the Secretary of State when the warrant was requested.

Judges:

Brooke LJ, Harrison J

Citations:

Gazette 13-Sep-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.163313

ML, Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Bremen intervening (Conditions De Detention En Hongrie): ECJ 4 Jul 2018

Fundamental Rights – Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – Framework Decision 2002/584 / JHA – European arrest warrant – Grounds for refusal of enforcement – Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Article 4 – Prohibition of treatment inhuman and degrading conditions – Conditions of detention in the issuing Member State

Citations:

Fundamental Rights – Opinion, C-220/18, [2018] EUECJ C-220/18PPU – O, [2018] EUECJ C-220/18PPU

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Jurisdiction:

European

Human Rights, Extradition

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620022

Regina v Governor of Belmarsh Prison and Another Ex Parte Francis: QBD 12 Apr 1995

Justices may not hear evidence from accomplices in extradition proceedings. Also foreign intercept evidence may be used in support of extradition proceedings. Extradition proceedings are not criminal proceedings as such, but may be sui generis. Section 69 had no application to extradition proceedings so as to allow the admission of computer print-outs, and nor did section 78.

Judges:

McCowan LJ

Citations:

Times 12-Apr-1995, [1995] 1 WLR 1121

Statutes:

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 69 78

Cited by:

ExplainedIn Re Levin; Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Levin HL 10-Apr-1997
The applicant had been detained pending extradition to the United States on charges of fraud. He said the evidence would not have been sufficient to justify his committal for trial.
Held: The Francis case did not establish that the 1984 Act . .
CitedRegina v P and others HL 19-Dec-2000
Where communications had been intercepted in a foreign country, and the manner of such interceptions had been lawful in that country, the evidence produced was admissible in evidence in a trial in England. An admission of such evidence was not an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86720

Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions Ex Parte Thom: QBD 21 Dec 1994

The Court could not judicially review a decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to discontinue extradition proceedings because, when acting in such proceedings on behalf of the requesting state, the Director does not act as a prosecutor, but as a lawyer on behalf of a foreign client whose instructions it is generally bound to follow.

Citations:

Times 21-Dec-1994

Cited by:

CitedRaissi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department Admn 22-Feb-2007
The claimant sought judicial review of a refusal to make an ex gratia payment for his imprisonment whilst successfully resisting extradition proceedings. Terrorist connections had been suggested, but the judge made an explicit finding that at no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86548

Regina v B (Extradition: Abuse of Process): CACD 17 Oct 2000

An allegation of abuse of process did not constitute a special category of extradition to allow a judicial review of a decision not to grant a stay of those extradition proceedings. Article 8 could not be used to restrict such decisions. In any event the issues relating to the way in which the applicant had come to be brought within the jurisdiction, and the non-disclosure he alleged had been fully argued and considered on appeal already and rejected.

Citations:

Times 17-Oct-2000

Extradition, Human Rights, Judicial Review

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86080

Re Evans: HL 7 Oct 1994

Justices were not to hear evidence on extradition of effect law of requesting country. Countries which are parties to an extradition treaty or the like have a mutual interest in seeing that persons who commit crimes in one country do not escape trial or punishment by fleeing abroad. The House described the legislative scheme: ‘There are thus six steps in the extradition of a suspect from the United Kingdom. First, the foreign court must consider that a charge of serious crime has been properly laid against the suspect on the basis of information which justifies the issue of a warrant for his arrest. Secondly the administration of the foreign country must consider that the charge, the law of the foreign country and the circumstances justify a request for extradition in accordance with the provisions of the Convention. Thirdly, the foreign state must identify the suspect, authenticate the foreign warrant for his arrest, give particulars of the alleged conduct which constitutes the offence and produce a translation of the relevant foreign law which establishes the offence and makes it punishable by 12 months’ imprisonment or more. Fourthly, the Secretary of State must satisfy himself that the request is in order. The Secretary of State must then satisfy himself that the equivalent conduct in the United Kingdom would constitute an offence under the law of the United Kingdom punishable by 12 months’ imprisonment or more. The Secretary of State may then issue an authority to proceed and must identify and specify the relevant law of the United Kingdom. Fifthly, the metropolitan magistrate sitting as a court of committal must be satisfied, after he has heard representations, that the alleged conduct would constitute a serious offence in the foreign state and in the United Kingdom. In other words the magistrate must be satisfied that a charge of serious crime offensive in the foreign country and offensive in the United Kingdom has been properly laid against the accused. The suspect can then be committed and the magistrate must certify the offence against the law of the United Kingdom which would be constituted by his conduct. Sixthly, subject to any habeas corpus proceedings, the Secretary of State may enforce extradition.’

Judges:

Lord Templeman

Citations:

Gazette 07-Oct-1994, [1994] 1 WLR 1006

Statutes:

European Convention on Extradition Order 1990, Extradition Act 1989

Cited by:

CitedPolanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd HL 10-Feb-2005
The claimant wished to pursue his claim for defamation against the defendant, but was reluctant to return to the UK to give evidence, fearing arrest and extradition to the US. He appealed refusal of permission to be interviewed on video tape. Held . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.85763

Lees v Government of Norway: QBD 1 Nov 2000

When considering an extradition application, a sentence which had been suspended in its operation was to be considered still as imprisonment in the context of asking what was the potential ‘punishment awarded’ The provisions of the Convention must be looked at in a broad and sensible way.

Citations:

Times 01-Nov-2000, Gazette 02-Nov-2000

Statutes:

European Convention on Extradition 1991 Cmd 1762 Art 2.1, European Convention on Extradition 1991 Cmd 1762 Art 2.1

Extradition

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82983

In Re Schmidt: HL 1 Jul 1994

The appellant sought to persuade the House that in extradition proceedings the courts enjoyed a similar jurisdiction to that exercised in Bennett.
Held: The appeal failed. The High Court has no inherent power to intervene in extradition proceedings outside the terms of the Act. ‘Accordingly, the position now is that in extradition proceedings under the Act of 1989 the High Court has power to intervene only in the circumstances predicated by the Act and has no inherent Common Law supervisory power as contended for by the applicant. The principal safeguard for the subject of extradition proceedings therefore remains in the general discretion conferred upon the Secretary of State by Parliament in Section 12. ‘
Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle said: ‘My Lords, I summarise my conclusions on this branch of the case thus. Atkinson v United States of America Government [1971] AC 197 decided that Parliament had excluded the jurisdiction of the courts to refuse to surrender a person under the 1870 Act when to do so would be unjust or oppressive. R v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex p Narang [1978] AC 247 emphasised that the statutory powers conferred upon the courts by the 1881 Act in relation to the Empire had been considerably restricted by section 8(3) of the 1967 Act. R v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex p Sinclair [1991] 2 AC 64 pointed out that the re-enactment of section 8(3) in section 11(3) of the Act of 1989 demonstrated that in relation to foreign countries no discretion to refuse the return of a foreign fugitive had previously existed. The dicta in Government of Australia v Harrod [1975] 1 WLR 745 and In re Osman, 28 February 1992 were obiter. R v Horseferry Road Magistrates’ Court, Ex p Bennett [1994] 1 AC 42 related to the very different situation of the power to stay an English prosecution. Accordingly, the position now is that in extradition proceedings under the 1989 Act the High Court has power to intervene only in the circumstances predicated by the Act and has no inherent common law supervisory power as contended for by the applicant. The principal safeguard for the subject of extradition proceedings therefore remains in the general discretion conferred upon the Secretary of State by Parliament in section 12. It follows that the Divisional Court were correct in concluding that the decisions in Atkinson and Sinclair had not been affected by Bennett and should be followed.’

Judges:

Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle

Citations:

Times 01-Jul-1994, Gazette 02-Nov-1994, Independent 06-Jul-1994, [1995] 1 AC 399

Statutes:

Extradition Act 1989 11(3) 12

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 . .
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. . .
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.

Extradition

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81615

Pisciotti v Bundesrepublik Deutschland: ECJ 10 Apr 2018

Non-Discrimination – Extradition To The United States of America – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the Union – Articles 18 and 21 TFEU – Extradition to the United States of America of a national of a Member State who has exercised his right to freedom of movement – Extradition agreement between the European Union and that third State – Scope of EU law – Prohibition on extradition applied only to own nationals – Restriction on free movement – Justification based on the prevention of impunity – Proportionality – Informing the Union citizen’s Member State of origin

Citations:

C-191/16, [2018] EUECJ C-191/16, [2018] WLR(D) 209, [2017] EUECJ C-191/16_O

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Extradition

Updated: 07 April 2022; Ref: scu.608644

Purcell and Another v Public Prosecutor of Antwerp and Another: Admn 31 Jul 2017

Adjourned hearing of two joined applications against decisions to order the extradition of individuals to Belgium pursuant to European arrest warrants. The decisions are challenged on the basis that prison conditions in Belgium violate the appellants’ rights under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Judges:

Hamblen LJ, Ouseley J

Citations:

[2017] EWHC 1981 (Admin)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 3

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Extradition, Human Rights, Prisons

Updated: 29 March 2022; Ref: scu.593602