Malta had originally sought H's extradition under an European arrest warrant in respect of three alleged offences of assault occasioning grievous bodily harm, but that warrant was quashed by the Divisional Court on the grounds that the warrant was not sufficiently particularised. Thereafter, Malta issued a second European warrant that again specified the same three offences. An expert report for H stated that one of the offences for which H's extradition was sought could not be classified as ass ...
|
The Claimant, who is 60, left Hong Kong for England in February 1998. On 15th February 1999 the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region issued a provisional request for the Claimant's arrest for trial on charges directly connected with a fraud committed by her husband to the value of £900,000. The Claimant was arrested in England in October 2000 pursuant to this request, but was discharged in April 2001. A month later a fresh request was issued. Various legal challenges were ul ...
|
It had been appropriate for the Secretary of State for the Home Department to order the extradition of an individual to Hong Kong to face trial for fraud offences even though it had not been concluded that the individual was fit to stand trial, as the law in Hong Kong on fitness to plead was largely the same as in the United Kingdom, and it was clear that the extradition would not be oppressive or disproportionate. There was no direct medical evidence that stated that Y could not explain the na ...
|
The appellant (H) appealed against decisions of a district judge ordering his extradition to the respondent requesting state, Australia. H was a 55-year-old British citizen who had a long history of mental illness. His extradition had been requested for the murder of his former partner. The crime had taken place in Australia 23 years previously and an inquest at that time recorded the cause of death as unresolved. Following admissions by H during his detention in a psychiatric hospital in Englan ...
|
The extradition to Australia of an alleged offender, who had a long history of mental illness, to face a murder charge 23 years after the offence was committed was not unjust and oppressive either due to the passage of time under the Extradition Act 2003 s.82 or because of his mental condition under s.91 of the 2003 Act. It was true that there was a risk or a certainty that extradition would cause some deterioration in H's mental health, but the extent and permanence of that deterioration were m ...
|
The appellant (P) appealed against a decision of a district judge ordering his extradition to Austria pursuant to a European arrest warrant for fraud-related offences. P was the director of a company that had been incorporated in Austria. Following an official complaint, a comprehensive investigation was conducted and criminal proceedings were brought against P in Austria. An EAW was issued and extradition ordered. P submitted that (1) the warrant contained inadequate particulars pursuant to s.2 ...
|
The appellant (L) appealed against a decision of a district judge to order his extradition to the respondent requesting state, Latvia. Latvia had sought L's extradition pursuant to a European arrest warrant that had been issued in respect of murder charges brought against L. At a contested hearing before the district judge L gave evidence that he feared for his safety if he was held in custody in Latvia. The district judge rejected L's evidence as unimpressive and found that no human rights issu ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 |