An EAW issued in relation to an individual charge charged with conspiracy to facilitate unlawful entry of illegal immigrants was sufficiently particularised for the purposes of section 2(4)(c) in relation to the offence circumstances, the person central to the conspiracy and M’s contact with that person. Appeal dismissed.
|
Whilst the risk of suicide if sufficiently well established could form the basis of proper arguments that return might lead to breaches of Art.3, in this case there was insufficient material in the psychiatrist’s report to justify such a conclusion. The report merely expressed concerns in relation to harm, which was not sufficient. Appeal dismissed.
|
The Magistrates court had been entitled to order the extradition of a man accused of sexual assault. There were no reasons to find that his extradition would have been oppressive or unjust by reason of the passage of time, or for concluding that on return he faced a real risk of being subjected to treatment by the police which would breach Art.3. Appeal dismissed.
|
B was convicted in his absence in Slovakia. At the Magistrate’s court level B was then discharged on the European Arrest Warrant on the grounds that his only chance of a retrial was if facts or evidence unknown at the time of the conviction were to emerge. This was upheld on appeal. The Judicial Authority was not assisted by the submission that Art.6 has been incorporated into the Slovakian Criminal Code. Appeal allowed.
|
The first and second appellants (L and K) appealed against extradition orders made against them in the United Kingdom on the basis that the Magistrates’ Court had misinterpreted the requirement in s2(4)(b) and s2(6)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 respectively, to particularise ‘any other warrant’, and accordingly had wrongly ordered extradition where the warrant was invalid. HELD: In dismissing the appeals, ‘any other warrant’ referred to the domestic warrant upon w ...
|
The claimant (H) applied for judicial review of a decision of the defendant Magistrates Court that they had no jurisdiction to order a court in Spain either to proceed against him only for the offences for which he had been extradited there, or to return him to the United Kingdom. HELD: In dismissing the application, the powers of the appropriate judge and the High Court in extradition proceedings were derived from the Act and nowhere else. The absence of any provision in the Act giving the appr ...
|
An European Arrest Warrant issued in relation to a professional fraud contained sufficient particulars; the absence of information as to the location of airports, companies and reservations was irrelevant. Reading the EAW and giving it its plain and ordinary meaning the conduct was clear. The amount of detail required for each warrant would be fact sensitive, but the requirement is so the requested person knows why he is sought. R could be in doubt as to why his surrender was sought. Appe ...
|
The appellant (D) appealed against an order for his extradition primarily on the grounds that his extradition would breach art.3 by reason of the prison conditions in the prison in which he would be detained. It was argued that once cogent evidence of possible breaches have been raised, the legal burden of proving an Article 3 case shifts from the claimant to the defendant. That evidence showed that prison conditions in Kenya are so bad a breach of art.3 would result. HELD: The burde ...
|
The appellants extradition was sought by an Italian judicial authority pursuant to an EAW. However, they contended that on being returned to Italy there was a real risk that the Italian Government would, in breach of art.3 of the Convention, allow their onward transmission to Tunisia. HELD: In dismissing the appeal, the test for the court to apply was whether, if the appellants were extradited, they would face a real risk of being deported to Tunisia. That risk had to be assessed on the evidence ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 |