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 plain and ordinary meaning. The sub-section requires the warrant to obtain particulars of the circumstances in which the person is alleged to have committed the offence. These particulars must include four elements: (1) the conduct alleged to constitute the offence; (2) the time and (3) the place at which he is alleged to have committed the offence; and (4) any provision of law under which the conduct is alleged to constitute an offence. ‘ This warrant failed to meet these standards, and was defective.


Dyson LJ, Walker J


[2006] EWHC 1672 (Admin), Times 10-Jul-2006




Extradition Act 2003 21(3)


England and Wales


CitedIn re Guisto (application for a writ of Habeas Corpus) (Criminal Appeal from Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice) HL 3-Apr-2003
The applicant challenged an order for his extradition to the US. He had been convicted in his absence having absconded from bail.
Held: He had been arrested and held on the basis that he was a convicted person, but the procedure should have . .
CitedVey v The Office of the Public Prosecutor of the County Court of Montlucon, France Admn 7-Apr-2006
. .
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 . .
CitedPalar v Court of First Instance Brussels Admn 15-Apr-2005
. .

Cited by:

See AlsoVon Der Pahlen v Leoben High Court, Austria Admn 4-Mar-2009
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243312