Tag: Extradition

Zdziaszek: ECJ 26 Jul 2017

Area of Freedom, Security and Justice : Judicial Cooperation In Criminal Matters : Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters – European arrest warrant – Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA – Surrender procedures between Member States – Conditions for execution – Grounds for optional non-execution – Article 4a(1) of Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA – Arrest warrant issued for the purpose of executing a custodial sentence or a detention order – ‘Trial resulting in the decision’ – Legal proceedings amending or combining a sentence passed previously – Decision handing down a cumulative sentence – Decision handed down without the person concerned having appeared in person – Person convicted not having appeared in person at the trial in the context of his initial conviction, either at first instance or on appeal – Person represented by a legal counsellor in the appeal proceedings – Arrest warrant not providing any information in that regard – Consequences for the executing judicial authority

C-271/17, [2017] EUECJ C-271/17
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Cited – Konecny v District Court In Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic SC 27-Feb-2019
K had been convicted and sentenced in his absence. His extradition was requested under an EAW which asserted that it was based upon an enforceable judgment, but that he had an unqualified right to be retried. He argued that the delay (since 2004 for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Extradition

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.593574

Imre v District Court In Szolnok (Hungary): Admn 14 Feb 2018

Treacy LJ and Males J
[2018] EWHC 218 (Admin)
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Konecny v District Court In Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic SC 27-Feb-2019
K had been convicted and sentenced in his absence. His extradition was requested under an EAW which asserted that it was based upon an enforceable judgment, but that he had an unqualified right to be retried. He argued that the delay (since 2004 for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.605605

Konecny v District Court Czech Republic: Admn 27 Sep 2017

Sir Wyn Williams,
(Sitting as a High Court Judge)
[2017] EWHC 2360 (Admin)
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 8, Extradition Act 2003 14(b)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Konecny v District Court In Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic SC 27-Feb-2019
K had been convicted and sentenced in his absence. His extradition was requested under an EAW which asserted that it was based upon an enforceable judgment, but that he had an unqualified right to be retried. He argued that the delay (since 2004 for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition, Human Rights

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.597449

Lewicki v Preliminary Investigation Tribunal of Napoli, Italy: Admn 18 May 2018

[2018] EWHC 1160 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Konecny v District Court In Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic SC 27-Feb-2019
K had been convicted and sentenced in his absence. His extradition was requested under an EAW which asserted that it was based upon an enforceable judgment, but that he had an unqualified right to be retried. He argued that the delay (since 2004 for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 11 January 2022; Ref: scu.618113

Bikar and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Governor of HM Prison Brixton: Admn 14 Feb 2003

The applicants, who had been convicted in absentia in the Czech Republic resisted their extradition under an accusation warrant on the ground that autrefois convict applied.
Held: As they had a right to request a new trial this was not a final judgment and accordingly they could be dealt with as persons accused

Henriques J
[2003] EWHC 372 (Admin)
Bailii
Extradition Act 1989
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Konecny v District Court In Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic SC 27-Feb-2019
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.184953

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
[2005] UKHL 67, [2006] 1 All ER 647, [2005] 3 WLR 1079, Times 18-Nov-2005, [2006] 2 AC 1
Bailii, House of Lords
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 from – King’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 . .
Cited – Director 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 . .
Cited – Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi v Her Majesty’s Advocate HCJ 14-Mar-2002
. .
Cited – In 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 . .
Cited – Government 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 . .
Cited – Clements 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Director 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 . .
Cited – Somchai 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 . .
Cited – Her 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 . .
Cited – Bleta, 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:
Cited – Kuprevicius 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. . .
Cited – Von 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 . .
Cited – McKinnon 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 . .
Cited – Dabas 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 . .
Cited – Hilali 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 . .
Cited – Krzyzowski 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 . .
Cited – Hilali, 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 . .
Cited – Pilecki 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Caldarelli 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 . .
Cited – BH 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 . .
Cited – Zakrzewski 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 . .
Cited – Bucnys 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 . .
Cited – Goluchowski 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 . .
Cited – Konecny v District Court In Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic SC 27-Feb-2019
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Extradition

Leading Case

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.235069

MS, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 22 Apr 2015

Three claims for judicial review of decisions of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, rejecting the claim of each Claimant that returning each of them to Italy would result in a real risk that each of them would be exposed to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the ECHR and certifying the claim as clearly unfounded within the meaning of paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 3 to the 2004 Act.

[2015] EWHC 1095 (Admin)
Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights, Immigration and Asylum (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004
England and Wales

Human Rights, Extradition

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.545873

Regional Court In Tarnow Poland v Wojciechowski: Admn 4 Nov 2014

[2014] EWHC 4162 (Admin)
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003 2(6)(c)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Goluchowski 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

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542566

Wheeler v The Office of The Prime Minister The Secretary of State for The Home Department: Admn 14 Nov 2014

Application for permission to bring a claim for judicial review of a proposed decision by Her Majesty’s Government to give notice pursuant to Article 10(5) of Protocol 36 to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘The TFEU’) that the United Kingdom wishes to participate in the Council Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant (‘EAW’).

Sir Brian Leveson P QBD, Jay, Lewis JJ
[2014] EWHC 3815 (Admin)
Bailii

Extradition, European

Updated: 23 December 2021; Ref: scu.538783

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 from – VB 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:
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Government 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina (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 . .
Cited – Loizidou 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’ . .
Cited – Wellington 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 . .
Cited – Al-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 . .
Cited – Secretary 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 . .
Cited – Smith, 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.
Cited – Smith 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 . .
Cited – Ismail, 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

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:
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Criminal 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 from – Louca 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. . .
Cited – Zakowski 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.’ . .
Cited – Dabas 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 . .
Cited – Jaso 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:
Cited – Assange 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.
Cited – Bucnys 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 . .
Cited – Goluchowski 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

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:
Cited – Ghani 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 from – Regina (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 . .
Cited – Entick 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:
Applied – Regina (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 . .
Cited – Durant 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 to – Regina (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 . .
Cited – Greene 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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:
Cited – Regina 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 Also – OB 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 from – OB 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 . .
Cited – Home 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 . .
Cited – Attorney-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:
Cited – Commissioner 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 from – Norris 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 . .
Cited – Jones 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 . .
Cited – Mogul 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.
Cited – Mogul 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 . .
Cited – Nordenfelt 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 . .
Cited – Mogul 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) . .
Cited – Attorney 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 . .
Cited – North 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 . .
Cited – Rawlings 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 . .
Cited – Rawlings 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 . .
Mentioned – North 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 . .
Cited – British 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 . .
Cited – Crofter 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 . .
Cited – British 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 . .
Cited – British 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 . .
Cited – Rex 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. . .
Cited – Regina v Lewis 1869
The defendants were convicted of conspiring to obtain money by divers false pretences and deceptive practices. . .
Cited – Douglas 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. . .
Cited – Scott 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Government 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 . .
Cited – In 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 . .
Cited – Hashman 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, . .
Cited – SW 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 . .
Cited – Government 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 . .
Cited – Government 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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. . .
Cited – United 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 . .
Cited – Edwards 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 . .
Cited – Dabas 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Bermingham 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Re 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 . .
Cited – Wellington, 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 . .
Cited – United 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 . .
Cited – Regina 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 . .
Cited – Jenkins v United States of America; Benbow v United States of America Admn 25-May-2005
. .
Cited – In 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 . .
Cited – Kakis 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:
Cited – A, 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.
Cited – GG 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 Also – Norris v Government of The United States of America and Another Admn 15-May-2009
. .
See Also – Norris 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:
Cited – In 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 . .
Cited – Caldarelli 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:
Cited – Halligen 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: . .
Cited – Lukaszewski 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

The judicial authority in Sweden v Assange; 24 Feb 2011

References: [2011] EW Misc 5 (MC)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Howard Riddle, Senior District Judge
Ratio:(City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court – Sitting at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court) The authority sought the extradition of the defendant to Sweden to face prosecution on allegations of sexual assaults. The defendant argued that the Act allowed extradition only for prosecution, and that in this case questioning only was sought and an extradition would be an abuse.
Held: There was no ambiguity in the warrant. The defendant was required for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution. The Swedish prosecution process allowed a stage before a decision was made as to the exact form of prosecution: ‘It is a question of fact in each case whether the person passes the threshold of being an ‘accused’ person who is wanted for prosecution. It is accepted by all parties in this case that it is wrong to approach this question solely from the perspective of English criminal procedure. In our jurisdiction prosecution will normally be started by the laying of an information, or a decision to charge. In many, perhaps most, other European countries the position is different.’ That being the case, the issue was as to the validity of the warrant. It was valid. It would not be appropriate to interrogate such a defendant otherwise than face to face, and the request for the return was proper.
The procedure for hearing such cases in Sweden behind closed doors was not a breach of the defendant’s human rights.
Statutes: Extradition Act 2003
This case is cited by:

  • At Magistrates Court – Assange -v- The Swedish Prosecution Authority SC (Bailii, [2012] UKSC 22, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, UKSC 2011/0264, SC, [2012] 2 AC 471, [2012] 3 WLR 1, [2012] 4 All ER 1249, [2013] 1 CMLR 4)
    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.
  • At Magistrates Court – Assange -v- Swedish Prosecution Authority Admn (Bailii, [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin))
    The defendant argued that he should not be extradited under a European Arest warrant to Sweden to face allegations of serious sexual assaults. He argued that the prosecutor requesting the extradition was not a judicial authority, that some offences . .

(This list may be incomplete)

Last Update: 04-Jun-16
Ref: 430056

Piaggio (Germany); 14 Feb 2007

References: Unreported, 14 Feb 2007
Court of Cassation Sez 6 (Italy). The appellant challenged the issue by the Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office of a European Arrest Warrant on the ground that it should have been issued and signed by a judge.
Held: The argument failed: ‘The claim alleging breach of article 1(3) of Law no 69 of 2005 on the ground that the EAW was not signed by a judge is completely unfounded.
The provision allegedly requiring signature by a judge does not refer to the EAW, as the appellant mistakenly claims, but to the precautionary measure on the basis of which the warrant was issued: in the present case, it is in fact the arrest warrant issued by the Hamburg District Magistrate’s Court on 24 August 2005, regularly signed by Judge Reinke.
The guarantee specified in the aforesaid article1(3) does not relate to the act requesting the Member State to grant extradition but is directly connected with the custodial measure, that is to say it is a substantial guarantee concerned with the basic conditions underlying the EAW, which must be subject to jurisdiction. In this procedure, the true guarantee of personal freedom is not the fact that the EAW is issued by a judicial authority but the fact that the warrant is based on a judicial measure.
Moreover, article 6 of the framework decision leaves to the individual Member State the task of determining the judicial authority responsible for issuing (or executing) a European Arrest Warrant, and the Italian implementing law, with regard to the active extradition procedure, provides for certain cases in which the Public Prosecutor’s office is to be responsible for issuing the EAW (article 28 of Law no 69/2005).
Essentially, the alleged breach of the law in respect of the fact that the EWA was signed by the Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office, must be excluded.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Assange -v- The Swedish Prosecution Authority SC (Bailii, [2012] UKSC 22, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, UKSC 2011/0264, SC, [2012] 2 AC 471, [2012] 3 WLR 1, [2012] 4 All ER 1249, [2013] 1 CMLR 4)
    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.

Dundon v The Governor of Cloverhill Prison; 19 Dec 2005

References: [2006] 1 IR 518, [2005] IESC 83, [2006] 1 ILRM 321
Links: Bailii
Coram: Murray CJ, Denham J, Hardiman J. Geoghegan J, Fennelly J
(Supreme Court of Ireland) The UK had issued a European arrest warrant in relation to the appellant. On 11 February 2004 he was arrested in Ireland and remanded in custody. 93 days later, following various adjournments of which some had been at his request, the High Court made an order for his surrender. On 16 March 2005, thus following a significant further delay, the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal. He forthwith issued fresh proceedings in which, by reference to his rights under the Irish Constitution, he challenged the lawfulness of his continued detention after the expiry of 60 days following his arrest. Ireland had transposed the Decision into its law by the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003.
Held: Section 16(10) did not automatically entitle the appellant to release on the expiry of 60 days (nor, by analogy, did section 16(11) have that effect on the expiry of 90 days) from the date of his arrest. The terms of section 10 of the Irish Act provided: ‘Where a judicial authority in an issuing state duly issues a European arrest warrant in respect of a person –
(a) against whom that state intends to bring proceedings for the offence to which the . . warrant relates, or
(b) . . that person shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Framework Decision be arrested and surrendered to the issuing state.’ The appellant argued that, even if the terms of section 16(10) and (11) of that Act were not strong enough to secure the success of his appeal, the effect of section 10 was to bring the whole of the Decision into Irish law and that an overall reading of the Decision entitled him to release, and that, whereas section 16(10) and (11) place time limits of 60 and 90 days on the making only of the decision by the High Court, Article 17(3) and (4) of the Decision requires that the ‘final’ decision be made within those limits; and, by reference thereto, he appears also to have relied upon the significant further delay between the making of the order for his surrender and the hearing of his appeal. The terms of section 10 of the Irish Act required the Court to appraise the Decision in detail. Denham J described the time limits of 60 days and 90 days in Article 17(3) and (4) of the Decision as ‘exhortation’; and Geoghegan J explained that they were set ‘with a view to internal discipline within the member states and not with a view to conferring individual rights in individual cases’..
Statutes: Council Framework Decision of 13th June 2002
This case is cited by:

Serbeh v Governor of HM Prison Brixton; 31 Oct 2002

References: CO/2853/2002, Unreported, 31 October 2002k
Coram: Kennedy LJ
Kennedy LJ said: ‘[T]here is (still) a fundamental assumption that the requesting state is acting in good faith.’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Ahmad and Aswat -v- United States of America Admn (Bailii, [2006] EWHC 2927 (Admin), Times 05-Dec-06, [2007] ACD 54, [2007] UKHRR 525, [2007] HRLR 8)
    The defendants appealed orders for their extradition. They were suspected of terrorist offences, and feared that instead of facing a trial, they would be placed before a military commission.
    Held: The appeals failed. The court had diplomatic . .

Schreiber v Canada (Attorney General); 12 Sep 2002

References: [2002] SCJ No 63, [2002] 3 SCR 269, [2002] SCC 62
Links: SCC
Coram: McLachlin, Beverley; Gonthier, Iacobucci, Bastarache, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel JJ
SCC (Supreme Court of Canada) International law – Sovereign immunity – Attornment to Canadian court’s jurisdiction exception – Germany initiating extradition process against Canadian citizen – Citizen arrested by RCMP and spending eight days in jail – Citizen suing Germany seeking damages for personal injuries suffered as a result of his arrest and detention in Canada – Whether Germany immune from jurisdiction of Canadian courts – Whether attornment to Canadian court’s jurisdiction exception applicable so as to deprive Germany of its immunity from instant action – Whether Germany waived its immunity from lawsuits in Canadian courts when it initiated extradition process – State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18, s. 4(2)(b).
International law – Sovereign immunity — Personal injury exception — Scope of exception — Germany initiating extradition process against Canadian citizen — Citizen arrested by RCMP and spending eight days in jail — Citizen suing Germany seeking damages for personal injuries suffered as a result of his arrest and detention in Canada — Whether Germany immune from jurisdiction of Canadian courts — Whether personal injury exception applicable so as to deprive Germany of its immunity from instant action — Whether exception distinguishes between jure imperii and jure gestionis acts — Whether exception applies only to claim of physical injury — State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18, s. 6(a).
Statutes — Interpretation — Bilingual statutes — Personal injury exception to state immunity — Meaning of expression ‘personal injury’ — Whether French version best reflects common intention of legislator found in both versions — Whether amendment made by Federal Law-Civil Law Harmonization Act to English version substantively changed the law — Purpose of harmonization legislation — State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18, s. 6(a) — Federal Law-Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1, S.C. 2001, c. 4, s. 121.
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – The Federal Republic of Nigeria -v- Ogbonna EAT (Bailii, [2011] UKEAT 0585_10_1207)
    EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – State immunity
    A claim for compensation for psychiatric illness caused by unlawful discrimination is a claim for ‘personal injury’ within the meaning of section 5 of the State . .

Dunne v High Court Dublin; Admnz 9 Jul 2009

References: [2009] EWHC 2003 (Admin)
Links: Bailii
Coram: Leveson LJ, Rafferty J
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Lukaszewski -v- The District Court In Torun, Poland SC (Bailii, [2012] UKSC 20, Bailii Summary, UKSC 2011/0177, SC, SC Summary, [2012] 1 WLR 1604, [2012] HRLR 22, [2012] 4 All ER 667, [2012] WLR(D) 158)
    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 th eextradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal . .

In re Avishalom Sarig; 26 Mar 1993

References: [1993] COD 472, CO/2643/92
Coram: Evans LJ
An extradition request came from the United States. The applicant resisted saying that the conviction was not final.
Held: The court should examine the nature of the conviction itself. The conviction of the fugitive in his absence was treated as final because if he were returned the court would have a discretion whether or not to set that conviction aside. Evans LJ said: ‘The question is, does the applicant have a right to trial of the alleged or admitted extradition crime, notwithstanding the conviction which has been recorded?’
This case is cited by:

  • Cited – Caldarelli -v- Court of Naples HL (Bailii, [2008] UKHL 51, HL, Times 19-Aug-08)
    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 . .