Each of the two appellants, Mr Goodyer, a UK national, and Mr Gomes, a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, is wanted by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago (“Trinidad”) for trial there on charges of possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking. Each was arrested in the UK following an extradition request by Trinidad and each unsuccessfully argued before the District Judge at their respective extradition hearings, first, pursuant to ss.79(1)(c) and 82 of the Extradition A ...
|
Where a delay had occurred in extradition proceedings, resulting from the fleeing of the accused from the jurisdiction in which he was bailed to appear, he could not rely on any subsequent culpable delay on the part of the requesting state to argue that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him by reason of passage of time pursuant to the Extradition Act 2003 s.82. The case of Krzyzowski v Poland (2007) EWHC 2754 (Admin) correctly stated the law on the passage of time bar to extradition, ...
|
T was a Czech national who had been resident in the United Kingdom for some time. He had been served with a notice of prosecution when he left the Czech Republic. His extradition was sought pursuant in relation to an allegation of swindling. The arrest warrant was vague. Further requests for information were sent to the Czech prosecuting authority and answers were given in a document signed by a Czech judge. T submitted he was wanted for questioning, not prosecution. HELD: The Czech judge's answ ...
|
As there were no general treaty arrangements between the United Kingdom and R, a memorandum of understanding was entered into by R and the UK in respect of the appellants (B) which engaged the statutory extradition machinery contained in the Extradition Act 2003 by force of s.194. After the signing of a warrant, B were arrested in London. At the subsequent extradition hearing, R proposed that B be tried for genocide in the Rwandan High Court, which was a court of criminal jurisdiction, as oppose ...
|
An European arrest warrant sufficiently specified conduct alleged to constitute an extradition offence and was valid for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003 s.2(4)(c). T contended that the conduct merely specified an alleged fraud against property in a broad manner that was insufficient to disclose what the extradition offence was, so that the warrant did not comply with s.2(4)(c) of the Act. HELD: Whilst the conduct said to constitute the offence was not well drafted, it was sufficiently p ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 |