The Appellant (I) appealed against an order for his extradition in order to execute a two-year term of imprisonment. I had been convicted in his absence but it was clear from the arrest warrant that I was entitled to a full retrial. I contended that the warrant had therefore been erroneously issued as a conviction warrant and was invalid.HELD: The existence of a right to retrial is not inconsistent with the requested person being a convicted person. The Extradition Act 2003 had to operate in rel ...
|
The Appellant (G) applied for Judicial Review of the District Judge’s refusal to adjourn judgement. G was not produced at court for the hearing because he had attempted to commit suicide which resulted in his transfer and detention at hospital.HELD: The District Judge was entitled to refuse the adjournment. There was nothing in the Extradition Act 2003 which expressly required a requested person’s presence. This was particularly true if the person was represented (section 122, Magistrates’ Court ...
|
The Appellants (FH and HH), a married couple, appealed against orders for their extradition in order to execute sentences of imprisonment of 14 years for offences of drug trafficking. The couple had three children. Expert evidence was adduced which concluded that separation would be acutely emotionally distressing for all the children and a traumatic and devastating loss.HELD: The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration but not necessarily the paramount consideration. They c ...
|
The Claimant (B) applied for Judicial Review of the Magistrates’ Court’s refusal to hear an application to discharge. Following an unsuccessful appeal against extradition the authorities had failed to extradite B within the required period.HELD: The Magistrates’ Court ought to have heard the submission but had no power to order discharge: section 36(8) of the Extradition Act 2003 applies.
|
The appellant (W) appealed against a decision of a district judge to make an extradition order in favour of the respondent requesting state, Poland. The sole issue before the district judge was whether it was unjust or oppressive for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003 s.25 to order W's extradition in light of psychiatric evidence that W would commit suicide if returned. The district judge found that it was not oppressive and ordered his extradition. Appeal allowed. (1) In determining wheth ...
|
The court was required to determine the consequences of a failure to extradite a person to a Category 1 territory within the required period following an unsuccessful appeal to the High Court against an order for extradition. The appeals of the three applicants (K, B and W) against extradition to the respondent requesting states under the Extradition Act 2003 s.26 had been dismissed. There was then a failure to extradite them within the original period laid down by s.36(3)(a) of the Act. The Hig ...
|
S appealed against the District Judge's decision to grant A, an Australian citizen, conditional bail. D faces extradition to Sweden for offences of rape and sexual assault.HELD: Appeal dismissed. S appeals on the basis that no conditions can effectively ensure attendance and surrender. As Sweden is a Part 1 territory for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003, there is no consideration of the strength of the case. No prima facie case has to be shown. Although A has weak community ties and has ...
|
SA appealed against the District Judge?s decision to grant D conditional bail. D faces extradition to SA for an offence of conspiracy to murder.HELD: Appeal dismissed. The Judge directed himself correctly. SA had to satisfy the Judge that there were substantial grounds for believing that D would fail to attend Court when required and that no conditions could meet those objections. It is not the role of the Court to consider guilt or innocence. The strength of the evidence may be of some assistan ...
|
S appealed the District Judge's decision to order his extradition to Poland. At the initial hearing, S raised issues pursuant to section 4 of the Extradition Act 2003: he had not been served with a Polish translation of the warrant. The Judge rejected these submissions and adjourned for an extradition hearing. At the extradition hearing, S sought to reopen section 4 on a different basis: the warrant had not been served on him as soon as practicable after his arrest. The Judge held there was no p ...
|
Application for an order under section 91 of the Extradition Act 2003:- Prior to the hearing of an appeal under section 103 of the Extradition Act 2003, the appellant sought to be discharged from the proceedings on health grounds. This was the second time that the appellant had sought such a discharge, the previous time the application was refused (Howes v HMA 2010 SLT 337). Section 91 provides:- "(1) This section applies if at any time in the extradition hearing it appears to the ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |