J appealed an order for his extradition on the basis of Section 21 and 25 of the EA 2003, in particular, that he was a suicide risk. He had previously attempted suicide in custody to avoid extradition to Latvia and nearly succeeded. Uncontested psychiatric evidence stated that if extradited to Latvia, he would commit suicide. The reports stated J was emotionally unstable and suffering from a moderate severe depressive episode and PTSD all of which would deteriorate if he was extradited. Evidence ...
|
F was a citizen of the respondent requesting state and had gone to Israel shortly before charges were brought against him and several others for fraud. He then moved to the United Kingdom where he married a British citizen. He was eventually arrested 11 years after his departure from the United States of America. The US sought his extradition by way of a letter, which the district judge decided was admissible. F claimed that his extradition would be unjust given the long delay, and oppressive be ...
|
The court had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against an extradition order where the notice of appeal was served outside the time limit provided for by the EA 2003. . The reality was that H's submissions overlooked the fact that he had already had a hearing before a district judge where any and all points as to the validity of the warrant or as to the non-fulfilment of the UK's obligations could have been raised. Domestic proceedings allowed an extradition appeal only if a tight timetable ...
|
Where an issue was not raised at an extradition hearing he was in general entitled to raise that issue on appeal to the Divisional Court, even though the issue was not raised at the extradition hearing. The dual criminality issue was not raised before the district judge. The fact that the district judge decided that the conduct contained in the warrant constituted an extradition offence did not mean that the dual criminality issue was raised before him within the meaning of the EA 2003 s.104. Se ...
|
Prison conditions in Lithuania were not such as to give rise to strong grounds for believing that a vulnerable prisoner would face a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment if extradited to Lithuania. The report relied upon by B by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture was based upon what had become old evidence by the date of the instant hearing. Further, Lithuania was well aware of the criticisms that had been made of it and that it had given specific undertakings in respect ...
|
The claimants (B and F) applied for judicial review of the respondent secretary of state's decision to extradite them to the United States of America. B and F had been accused by the US government of participation in terrorist acts and the US sought the extradition of B and F having categorised F as a specially designated global terrorist. Proceedings were initiated under the Extradition Act 1989. F and B were committed to await the secretary of state's decision as to their return to the US and ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 |