The claimant (M) applied for judicial review of the decision of the defendant secretary of state to order his extradition to the US. M had admitted using his home computer to hack into computers of the US government. A DJ sent M's case to the SSHD, who subsequently ordered M's extradition. M made a fresh claim to the SSHD on health grounds, relying on fresh evidence that he had Asperger Syndrome. The reports stated that the degree of stress of imprisonment, in particular if it were to occur in a ...
|
Conduct described in a European arrest warrant constituted an extradition offence. It was implicit that the deliberate failure by K to return a car to its owner following a failure to make payments and was summonsed to return the car by an apparently appropriate body, was a criminal offence. The fact that the individual concerned, suffered from a heart condition, was insufficient in the circumstances to make his extradition oppressive. The heart condition required that he be fitted with an impla ...
|
The word "trial" in the Extradition Act 2003 did not refer to a single event and it was appropriate to construe "trial" as meaning a continuing process that only came to an end when a final decision was made in criminal proceedings that formed the basis of an extradition request. That included the appeal. Misinformation given by a legal adviser to an individual subject to an extradition request would not make that individual's decision to absent himself from a trial not deliberate for the purpos ...
|
A refusal by the High Court to certify a question for the House of Lords following an unsuccessful extradition appeal to the High Court did not of itself make the High Court's decision final or abridge the period of 14 days allowed for making an appeal against the High Court's decision as it was open to an individual to seek to certify a different question within the 14-day period allowed for by s.32(5) EA 2003. Moreover, to make the running of the required period of 10 days under s.36(3) depend ...
|
A judge had correctly ordered the extradition to the United States of a British man alleged to have committed advanced fee fraud at a high level. Although the judge had stated that the relevant guidance in relation to forum did not apply, he had still observed the spirit of the guidance; although the Metropolitan Police played a large role in collecting the evidence, it was highly mobile. X was the principal witness and it was not clear if there would be other witnesses. Although X would have re ...
|
The appellant (G) appealed his extradition on the basis that the warrant was not valid as his conduct was insufficiently particularised and the United Kingdom could not be satisfied that he was an accused person wanted for prosecution rather than just for questioning. The EAW, issued in respect of G for offences against public health due to drug trafficking, described that a leisure vessel had been moored in a Spanish marina and the crew had left it without being seen by security. A search of th ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 |