The United States Government is seeking the extradition of the appellant, Mr Norris, so he may be tried on an indictment charging him with obstruction of justice. He had originally faced a further charge of price fixing. The House of Lords ruled in 2008 ([2008] UKHL 16) that the conduct alleged in relation to the price fixing charge was not capable of amounting to an extradition offence as it was not a crime under English law when it was committed. His case was then sent back to the district jud ...
|
The Appellant (D) appealed against an order for his extradition to Spain on the basis of passage of time (section 14). Spain sought D's extradition in respect of three charges of rape of a minor. D had been arrested in 1993 in Spain in respect of the alleged offences. Sometime later, D was charged and granted bail subject to a condition that he had to report to a Spanish court every fortnight. In 1995 the bail was varied so that D was allowed to visit the United Kingdom for two weeks with the ba ...
|
The Appellant (B) appealed against an order for his extradition to Poland. B submitted that he had been convicted in his absence and did not deliberately evade the proceedings. HELD: The instant hearing was not a re-hearing in relation to the evidence. The role of the court was to review the District Judge's decision in relation to fact and law. The evidence from the Judicial Authority of B's awareness and presence at the trial was powerful. The District Judge heard B's evidence. He had taken al ...
|
The Appellant (K) appealed against an order for his extradition to Poland. K made no challenge to the District Judge?s substantive findings. The European Arrest Warrant was issued for the purpose of executing a six-month custodial sentence imposed in Poland. As a result of the passage of time since initial arrest, K effectively spent nine months in custody; three months more than he was required to serve in Poland. K submitted that it would be unfair and wrong to send him back to Poland to serve ...
|
The Appellant (D) appealed against an order for his extradition to the Netherlands on the basis of conviction in absence (section 20). D had been convicted and sentenced to four years' imprisonment in his absence in the Netherlands. At the time of the trial D was a prisoner at a Polish prison. The Judicial Authority produced documentation that D had been personally served with a trial summons and with documents in Polish and Dutch informing him of the trial and his right to be legally represente ...
|
The appellant (S) appealed against a decision of a magistrates' court to order his extradition to Poland. S initially sought to resist extradition on the grounds that extradition was inappropriate given the passage of time and that extradition would amount to a disproportionate interference with his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 art.8. In support of the art.8 point S made a statement to the effect that he was the only carer for his mother-in-law who suffered from a va ...
|
The appellant (B) appealed against a decision of the district judge to order his extradition to the respondent requesting state, Hungary. B had been convicted of a number of offences in Hungary, one of which followed a trial in his absence. Before the district judge, the issue for determination concerned the Extradition Act 2003, and whether B was entitled to a retrial pursuant to s20(5) and the rights set out in s.20(8), including free legal representation. The evidence before the court was in ...
|
The appellant (W) appealed a decision of a district judge to order his extradition to the respondent requesting state, France. W had been caught with drugs entering France some 20 years before the date of the instant hearing and had immediately pleaded guilty to drugs offences. W was kept in custody for two-and-a half years before being released on bail to return to his family address in Holland. Thereafter, albeit that W was on bail, the French authorities issued an international arrest warrant ...
|
The Appellant (G) appealed against an order for his extradition to Italy for offences of attempted murder and unlawful possession of weapons, on the basis that he had been convicted in his absence, had not deliberately absented himself and would not now be guaranteed a full re-trial, in breach of his Article 6 Convention rights. HELD: Although the requesting authority had provided evidence that re-trial rights were discretionary they also confirmed that Italian law had been interpreted in compli ...
|
The Appellant (L) appealed against a decision of the Divisional Court dismissing his appeal against extradition orders made pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant. L’s extradition was sought for prosecution in Germany for offences of tax evasion. L challenged the validity of the European Arrest Warrant, pursuant to Section 2(4)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003, on the basis that it did not include details of two earlier European Arrest Warrants which had now been withdrawn. The Divisional Court had ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 |