Mr Caldarelli challenges a decision of the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court upholding an order that he be surrendered pursuant to a European arrest warrant (EAW) issued by the Court of Naples. He complains that the warrant is bad because it seeks his surrender as an accused person and not (as he claims to be) a convicted person. The certified question is: “Where a fugitive has been convicted and sentenced in his absence in the requesting state, but the conviction and sentence are neit ...
|
The appellant is a 42 year old British citizen. In October 2004 the US government requested his extradition to the US alleging that between February 2001 and March 2002 he had gained unauthorised access to 97 US Government computers from his home computer in London. In May 2006, District Judge Evans sent the appellant’s case to the Secretary of State to decide whether the appellant should be extradited and in July 2006 the Secretary of State ordered the appellant’s extr ...
|
The appellant, whose extradition was sought by the respondent state, argued that the disparity between the sentence proposed under plea-bargaining and that which he would receive on conviction was disproportionate, subjected him to impermissible pressure to surrender his legal rights and as such amounted to an abuse of process. HELD: Whilst the disparity between the sentences indicated was very marked, in one sense all discounts for pleas of guilty could be said to subject the defendant to press ...
|
The appellant appealed the findings of the Courts below that the warrant seeking his return might properly be characterised as an ‘accusation warrant’ for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003, despite his having been ‘convicted’. HEL:D: Providing as they did for international co-operation between states with different procedural regimes, the Framework Decision and the 2003 Act could not be interpreted on the assumption that procedures which obtained findings of guilt ...
|
Appeal under section 26(1) of the Extradition Act 2003:- On 16 March 2007 the Sheriff at Edinburgh made an order that the appellant should be extradited to France after he was sentenced to nine years imprisonment, in his absence, in 2002, in France, for involvement in the transport, importation and possession of drugs and banned merchandise. The Sheriff pronounced his order under section 21 of the 2003 Act at the conclusion of an extradition hearing upon a European arrest warrant presented by th ...
|
An EAW was invalid so far as it related to an offence of drug trafficking as it had failed to specify any conduct capable of amounting to that offence which had occurred within the requesting state. The remainder of the warrant that pertained to an offence of engaging in a criminal conspiracy with the purpose of committing drug trafficking was valid. Appeal allowed in part.
|
Petition to the nobile officium of the High Court
The petitioner applied to the nobile officium of the court after his appeals against extradition had been dismissed earlier this year. The jurisdiction of it involves the exercise of the court's discretion to provide a remedy where none would otherwise be available, in circumstances where the interests of justice clearly require it. Here the petitioner requested the court to hold, in the exercise of the nobile officium, that:- "(a) that the petitioner's status having changed from being a person ...
|
Appeal against extradition:-The court here heard a
and (2) the decision of Sheriff Maciver dated 21 December 2005 in which he ordered the appellant's extradition. In both appeals the appellant lodged a devolution minute on the ground that the exclusion of a right of appeal from the court to the House of Lords was a violation of his rights under articles 5, 6 and 8, when read with article 14, of the European Convention on Human Rights. It was further submitted that the 2003 Act did not apply at all to conduct occurring before the date on which it ...
|
| 1 |