The appellant (P) appealed against a decision of a district judge to extradite him to the respondent requesting state, Poland. P's extradition had been sought for offences of robbery and obtaining property by deception. Appeal dismissed. P's notice of appeal was defective as it did not specify the gist of his appeal and that in itself was reason to dismiss his appeal.
|
J appealed against a decision of a district judge that he should be extradited to the respondent requesting state, Sweden. A European arrest warrant was issued by the Swedish prosecution authority alleging an offence of unlawful coercion and two of sexual molestation in relation to one complainant and an offence of rape in relation to another complainant. J argued that (1) the warrant had not been issued by a judicial authority; (2) the description of the offences in the warrant was not a fair a ...
|
In the exceptional circumstances, a request to extradite an individual to Bulgaria to stand trial for murder was an abuse of process as Bulgaria had not provided any reassurance that the prosecution was being conducted in good faith or that a fair trial had become possible since an earlier finding that the investigation into the alleged offence had been tainted and the prosecution had been made in bad faith.The allegation related to murder. The respondent denied any knowledge of it and said she ...
|
Abuse of process, breach of Articles 2 and 3 and that his extradition ought to be barred by reason of section 91 (physical and mental health). The District Judge (DJ) rejected the argument and ruled that D could be extradited to SA to face trial for his wife's murder. Prison conditions: issues raised included problems relating prison conditions, the prevalence sexual violence to which D would be vulnerable and that a single cell would provide insufficient protection. In response, SA provided ass ...
|
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 ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |