The appellant, Mr Louca, was a Cypriot national whose arrest in England and surrender to the Federal Republic of Germany for trial of six alleged offences of tax evasion was sought by the Office of the Public Prosecutor of Bielefeld pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant. The warrant was certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency (“SOCA”) pursuant to s.2(7) of the Extradition Act 2003. Mr Louca challenged its validity on the ground that it contained no reference to two prev ...
|
The appellant sought to appeal an order for his extradition on the basis that his extradition ought to have been barred by reason of passage of time. The offences for which he was sought were of rape, committed in 1999 when B was 16 years old. At the time he was interviewed on a number of occasions and released on bail. Information from the IJA then did not disclose what had happened between Jul 2002 and Aug 2004 when B was served with a summons to appear at his trial. He did not attend. B denie ...
|
The Appellant (D) sought to appeal an order for his extradition on the basis that such an order would breach his human rights under Articles 2 and 3 (those issues having been raised at first instance). After the first instance hearing, counsel and solicitors had withdrawn from the case. Before counsel had withdrawn, D was given an Appellant’s notice. D filed a notice in time. The Administrative Court Office did not issue until three days later. D then served it on the CPS two months later (by wa ...
|
The Appellant (S) appealed an order for his extradition on the basis of section 14 (delay) and section 21(human rights) Art.8 and the psychiatric condition of his wife. HELD: The late admission of the Appellant’s psychiatric evidence was not objected to and though the court was concerned by its late admission, where there were differences between the two expert psychiatrists reports, it adopted assumptions favourable to the Appellant. On that basis the court found that, as regards the psychiatri ...
|
The Appellant (L) appealed against an order for his extradition on the basis that the conduct did not satisfy the dual criminality test. The EAW alleged that L had unlawfully alienated moveable property on which a Polish Inland Revenue official had "levied an attachment", and that L's conduct was an offence against economic relations. HELD: The conduct failed the dual criminality test. It was unclear what was meant by "levied an attachment". In particular, it could not be said that the phrase wa ...
|
The Appellant (N) appealed against a decision ordering her extradition to the respondent requesting state on the basis that the conduct for which she was wanted did not constitute an extradition offence, and her extradition would be incompatible with her rights under Art.8. The EAW conduct was endangering the morale of a juvenile and intentionally allowing them to miss school. The Art.8 argument arose as a result of the disabilities of one of her children. HELD: The conduct described in the arre ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 |