The State of Missouri alleges that the appellant, Wellington, committed two murders in Kansas City and he is charged with murder in the first degree. The appellant was arrested in London on a provisional warrant. The United States requested his extradition. The prosecutor in Missouri gave an undertaking that he would not seek the death penalty. Some time was then taken up with an unsuccessful challenge to the committal by judicial review but the Home Secretary later notified the appe ...
|
The appellant faced two charges of murder in Missouri, for which the mandatory penalty was imprisonment for life without eligibility for probation or parole or release, except by the act of the Governor. He challenged the decision to order his extradition on the basis that it breached his rights under ECHR 1950 art.3, arguing that a sentence of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole constituted inhuman or degrading punishment. HELD: A complaint under art.3 could not be made simply beca ...
|
The imposition of a life sentence would not necessarily infringe Art.3. While an irreducible life sentence might raise an issue under Art.3 but would not necessarily infringe it, a life sentence that was not irreducible would not even raise an issue. Moreover, the bar for what counted as irreducible was set high; power to release someone from a life would mean the sentence was not irreducible. The test of what constituted inhuman or degrading punishment within the meaning of the Euro ...
|
The appellant (C) appealed against a decision of City of Westminster Magistrates' Court consenting under the Extradition Act 2003 s.55(6) to a request from the respondent requesting state that C serve a sentence of imprisonment in respect of a conviction which was not related to his original extradition. C argued his conditions of detention in the Czech Prison amounted to a breach of art.3. HELD: In the absence of statutory provisions for an appeal to consent requests, the appropriate mechanism ...
|
A European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued in respect of an individual accused of fraud offences had been adequately particularised for the purposes of section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003 (EA 2003). The purpose of particularisation was to provide the requested person with sufficient information about his alleged offences to permit him to contest the extradition and to provide the requested state with sufficient information to determine whether or not to order extradition. The conduct ...
|
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.
|
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.
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 |