In 1996, the Appellant (R) was convicted of attempted robbery and sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. He was released on compassionate grounds in 1998. Following his release he was entitled to apply annually for his release to continue. If he applied successfully in three consecutive years, the release would become absolute. He failed to make the third application and moved to the UK.The District Judge did not accept that extradition would breach R’s Article 8 rights.HELD: Appeal dismissed. This ...
|
HELD: Appeal dismissed. A letter, received by the Respondent from the Appellant declaring his intention to appeal the District Judge’s decision to order his extradition, did not amount to notice of appeal.
|
In 1997, the Respondent (M) was convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 6 years imprisonment. M served 2 years of her sentence before being released and leaving Italy for the UK.The District Judge refused to order her extradition on the basis that it would be oppressive due to the passage of time.The Italian Judicial Authority appealed the District Judge’s decision to discharge the Respondent.HELD: Appeal dismissed. The District Judge was entitled to find that the passage of 12 years rend ...
|
The Administrative Court, in allowing the appellant's appeal in part, held that the dual criminality requirement under s 64(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003 had not been satisfied in relation to two of the alleged offences. The offense concerned were said to be offences of acquiring or possessing criminal property. Whilst for two of the four relevant offences the description had given rise to an inference of knowledge or suspicion as required by ss 329 and 340 of the 2002 Act, , in the case of ...
|
The case concerns extradition request relating to a husband and wife (P and H), who have three children in this country for whom P was the principal carer. If the extraditions went ahead, the children would have to be cared for by social services which, it was argued would be a breach of Article 8. In dismissing the appeal, the court held that although the best interests of affected children were a primary consideration in extradition cases, they could not generally override the public interest ...
|
In an application to discharge, following numerous applications to extend time for removal the court held, in dismissing the application that the power to discharge an extraditee under the Extradition Act 2003 s.36(8) could not be exercised during the currency of a "required period", as defined by s.36(3). The thrust of s.36(8) was directed at circumstances where, at the time of the application, the extraditing authority had no power to further detain the extraditee in the absence of an extensio ...
|
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.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |