A party will not be permitted to rely upon fresh evidence in extradition appeals unless there is very good reason. The respondents are of Roma origin and contended before the district judge that their extradition to Hungary, a Category 1 territory under the 2003 Act, was barred by extraneous considerations (section 13) and that the judge should order their discharge because their extradition would be incompatible with their Convention Rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 199 ...
|
A judge was correct to conclude that offences of tax evasion under US law were, in the circumstances, extradition offences for the purposes of the extradition Act 2003 s.137(2)(b) on the basis that the evader's alleged conduct was, if proven, dishonest, so that he would be guilty of comparable English offences of tax evasion. It was common ground that, whereas the comparable English offences required proof of dishonesty, the relevant American offences did not. HELD: The cour ...
|
A judge had been entitled to conclude that there had been a "reasonable cause for the delay" in executing an extradition order for the purposes of the extradition Act 2003 s.36(8) where other extradition proceedings were in progress in the English courts under EAWs issued by the same issuing authority and the person subject to the extradition order should not be deprived of the opportunity to be present and give evidence at the hearing in those proceedings. Assuming that the issuing jud ...
|
The appellant (S), a Romanian national, appealed against an order that he be extradited to Romania. S had been convicted in his absence by the respondent court in 2003 of attempted first degree murder and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. He was believed to be in Spain at the time of the trial. The Romanian court had concluded that he knew about the trial because his wife had told him about it by telephone. The EAW was drafted as a conviction warrant. S submitted that he had a right to ...
|
These two appeals concern the time limits in Part 1 and Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 governing appeals to the High Court against an order of a District Judge permitting extradition. s.26(4) and s.103(9) provide that “Notice of an appeal … must be given in accordance with rules of court before the end of …. [7 or 14] days starting with the day on which the order is made". Three questions of principle arise: (a) Must the appeal notice be both filed in the High Court a ...
|
A delay of approximately nine years between when suspected offenders had apparently committed the relevant offences and when proceedings were commenced to extradite them to Hong Kong did not make it unjust to extradite them as they, rather than the Hong Kong authorities, were largely responsible for the delay. The appellants (R) appealed against a decision that the secretary of state should consider whether they were to be extradited to the respondent requesting state, Hong Kong. R had ...
|
Note of Appeal under section 26(1) of the Extradition Act 2003:- On 19 September 2007 a Sheriff of Lothian and Borders at Edinburgh ordered that the appellant should be extradited to Italy to serve sentences of imprisonment imposed on her in her absence by the Italian courts for offences of armed robbery and counterfeiting under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003 following the presentation by the relevant Italian authority of two European Arrest Warrants (EAWs). Here the appellant appealed a ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 |