The claimant Turkish national (C) sought judicial review of the defendant magistrates' court's refusal to order his discharge following failure to open the extradition hearing within the time required by the Extradition Act 2003 s.75(4). HELD: Application refused. Section 116 did not purport to restrict the right to apply for judicial review, it restricted the manner of recourse to the court. The judge's refusal to order a person's discharge under s.75(4) was not a decision for the purposes of s ...
|
The appellant Polish national (M) appealed against an order requiring him to be extradited to Poland. The Polish judicial authority had issued a European arrest warrant for M's arrest and extradition in respect of convictions by Polish criminal courts for which he had received a 12-year sentence. The warrant contained a number of inaccuracies in that it incorrectly particularised convictions, including those for which M had been acquitted, and failed to clearly identify the dates and court of th ...
|
Poland appealed against a decision of the district judge refusing to order the extradition of the respondent (W). The time to give notice of appeal under the Extradition Act 2003 s.28 expired on April 19, 2010. On April 16, the Polish judicial authorities faxed to W's solicitors an unsealed notice of appeal and supporting documentation. On April 19, notice of appeal in the same form was filed with the Administrative Court. The following day, one day after the expiration of the permitted period u ...
|
The Appellant (R) appealed against the decision of the District Judge to order extradition. R appealed on the basis that the warrant was invalid. R submitted that, contrary to section 10 of the Extradition Act 2003, the offences were not extradition offences because the warrant stated that they were contrary to a code of Lithuanian law that had expired.HELD: The warrant clearly stated that the alleged conduct amounted to offences under Lithuanian law at the time that they were allegedly committe ...
|
Appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003:- This was an appeal against an extradition order by the sheriff at Edinburgh on 11 January 2010 which required the extradition of the appellant to Germany under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003. The request for the return of the appellant by the the German authorities was for the return of the appellant as they wished to have him returned to their jurisdiction to place him on trial for a crime of assault to the danger of life o ...
|
K appealed against a decision of the district judge ordering his extradition to the requesting state, Lithuania. K had been arrested under a European arrest warrant seeking his return to Lithuania to serve a term of imprisonment. K submitted that, in the light of a report recently obtained from the United States State Department, to the effect that prison conditions in Lithuania fell below international standards, he was at risk of having his art.3 rights breached, and should therefore be discha ...
|
C appealed against a decision that he should be extradited to the respondent requesting state, Poland, in respect of offences including an alleged theft. C had failed to attend trial in relation to the alleged theft as at the time he was in custody for a different offence. He was tried in his absence. C had not received a summons in respect of the trial as it had been sent to his home address. A district judge found that he was satisfied that C had been aware of a duty to notify authorities of a ...
|
D was an Angolan national who had entered the United Kingdom in 1995 and claimed asylum. Following a number of decisions rejecting his claim, which were subsequently withdrawn by the Home Secretary, his refugee status was still outstanding. In 2009, three European arrest warrants were issued for D. His surrender was sought by the Portuguese judicial authorities in respect of charges of armed robbery. D contended that where a person had applied for asylum, he was not to be extradited, since the E ...
|
The Appellant (K) appealed against the decision of the District Judge to order the Appellant to await the decision of the Secretary of State concerning his extradition. The Appellant appealed on six grounds: (i) the UK courts should stay an extradition that is predicated on the misconduct of foreign police officers acting in the UK in breach of Article 6; (ii) the District Judge was wrong to conclude that the alleged abuse of process gave rise to a jurisdiction which is residual in nature and wh ...
|
The Appellant (D) appealed against the decision of the District Judge to order the Appellant to await the decision of the Secretary of State concerning his extradition. The Appellant appealed on two grounds: (i) whether the particulars of the offences were sufficiently specified and (ii) whether there was a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice in breach of Article 6 if the appellant was extradited. HELD: The request did not satisfy the requirements of particularity in accordance with the pr ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |