2005

Cases Reported

Wellington v Governor of HMP Belmarsh and Government of the USA	1
Issue: Whether a state requesting a person’s extradition had a duty of disclosure similar to that of a prosecuting authority in domestic criminal proceedings.

Castillo v Kingdom of Spain and Governor of HMP Belmarsh	8
Issue: Whether the request for extradition contained a fair description of the conduct alleged against C and whether it was made in good faith.

Bleta v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 1)	17
Issue: Whether, in a conviction case under the Extradition Act 2003, it was necessary for the request to state that the person sought was “unlawfully at large” and whether that could be inferred from the request and accompanying documents.

Office of the King's Prosecutor, Brussels v Armas and Bow Street Magistrates’ Court (DC)	22
Issue: Whether an extradition request fell within s65 Extradition Act 2003.

Raffile v Government of the USA	29
Issue: Whether the district judge had the power to adjourn the extradition hearing; whether return would violate R’s rights under Arts 2, 3, 6 or 8 ECHR; and whether his extradition was barred by reason of oppression caused by the passage of time, or by virtue of R being mentally unfit to stand trial.

Pinto v Governor of HMP Brixton and the First Section of the First Criminal Court of Lisbon	35
Issue: Whether the EAW was invalid because it did not make clear that the person sought was unlawfully at large and if so, whether that invalidated all the steps taken under the 2003 Act pursuant to the EAW.

Handa v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court and the High Instance Court of Paris	37
Issue: Whether the District Judge should have adjourned the extradition hearing of a person serving a domestic sentence to a time closer to the person’s earliest release date.

Convery v High Court of Rotterdam	42
Issue: Whether there had been a failure to comply with the time-limits laid down in the Extradition Act 2003 and whether the offences in respect of which extradition was sought were “extradition offences” under the Act.

Bleta v Government of the Republic of Albania (No 2)	47
Issue: Whether B had deliberately absented himself from his trial in Albania and, if not, whether he would be entitled to a re-trial.

Okendeji v Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and Bow Street Magistrates’ Court	57
Issue: Whether O would receive a fair trial in Australia, in light of a claimed reversal of the legal burden of proof, and thus whether his extradition would be compatible with Art 6 ECHR.

Palar v Court of First Instance Brussels	62
Issue: Whether the European Arrest Warrant provided sufficient particulars of the person’s alleged conduct.

Bentley v Government of the USA	65
Issue: Whether extradition should be refused by virtue of the fact that the US government had not proved that MDMA was a banned substance at the material time in the USA; that the conduct relied on did not take place in the USA; and/or that extradition would violate B’s rights under Art 8 ECHR.

Schmidt v Secretary of State for the Home Department	70
Issue: Whether S’s extradition would be oppressive due to the passage of time; whether the request was in bad faith; whether the allegations were time-barred; whether return would breach Art 8 ECHR; and whether S would be prejudiced at trial by virtue of his membership of an evangelical Protestant group.

Derevianko v Government of Lithuania and Governor of HMP Brixton	75
Issue: Whether an offence was an “extradition offence” under the Extradition Act 1989; whether D should not be extradited due to the triviality of the offence and/or whether his extradition would be oppressive by reason of the passage of time.

(1) Jenkins v Government of the USA; (2) Benbow v Government of the USA and another	78
Issue: Whether the appellants had been entrapped by the US government to commit the offences and, if so, whether that was a bar to their extradition for those offences.

Cook v (1) Government of Spain; (2) Governor of HMP Brixton	83
Issue: Whether C’s return would be oppressive or unjust by reason of the passage of time.

Guven v (1) Government of France, (2) Governor of HMP Brixton	86
Issue: Whether G’s return would be oppressive or unjust by reason of the passage of time and the risk of return to Turkey in breach of a grant of asylum.

Kleinschmidt and Dewar v Government of Germany	89
Issue: By when and by whom are the documents specified in s70(9) of the 2003 Extradition Act, in particular the relevant Order in Council, to be served?

Selbach v Government of Lithuania	98
Issue: Whether proceedings in Lithuania amounted to an adjudication on which S could rely to show that he had been acquitted of the offence and that his extradition was therefore barred by virtue of s6(3) Extradition Act 1989.

Zigmund v Government of Slovakia and Secretary of State for the Home Department	100
Issue: Whether Z’s extradition to Slovakia was barred by oppression by reason of the passage of time and/or the basis upon which Slovakia asserted criminal jurisdiction.

Kadre v Government of France; Governor of Belmarsh Prison	104
Issue: Whether the request disclosed extradition crimes, whether it disclosed sufficient conduct and whether the request was made in bad faith.

Nur v Public Prosecutor Van der Valk	109
Issue: Whether the District Judge had been right not to allow N to re-open the issue of identity at the extradition hearing after it had been decided against him at the initial hearing.

Beresford v Government of the Commonwealth of Australia	113
Issue: Whether it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite B given the passage of up to 22 years since the offences allegedly occurred; whether lack of clarity in the evidence meant that it was not shown that there was an extradition offence.

Sirvelis v Governor of HM Prison Brixton and Government of Lithuania	118
Issue: Whether it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite S to Lithuania by reason of the passage of time.

Bohning v Government of the USA	121
Issue: Whether extraditing B to the USA would amount to double jeopardy or abuse of process in light of the UK proceedings against him.

Nikonovs v Governor of HM Prison Brixton and Republic of Latvia	125
Issue: Whether habeas corpus was available in extradition proceedings under the Extradition Act 2003 and, if so, whether it should be granted in this case on the basis that N was not brought before the Court as soon as practicable, as required by the 2003 Act.

Okendeji v Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and Bow Street Magistrates Court (No 2)	128
Issue: Whether s104(7) Extradition Act 2003 barred a second appeal to the High Court where the District Judge reached the same decision as at a hearing which had been appealed successfully and remitted for a further decision.

Owalabi v Court Number 4 at the High Court of Justice in Spain	132
Issue: Whether O’s extradition was barred by the passage of time.

Enander v Governor of HMP Brixton and Swedish National Police Board	135
Issue: Whether the Swedish National Police Board was a “Judicial Authority” for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003.

Office of the Kings Prosecutor, Brussels v Armas and others (HL)	139
Issue: Whether an extradition request fell within s65 Extradition Act 2003.

Ramda v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Government of France	152
Issue: Whether the Secretary of State’s decision to order R’s extradition was flawed by virtue of bad faith on the part of the French authorities or by the risk of an unfair trial in France or ill-treatment in France or in Algeria if he were to be extradited.

Mariotti v Government of Italy and Others	162
Issue: Whether M’s extradition was barred by virtue of s6(2) (conviction in absence) or s11(3) (unjust or oppressive to extradite by reason of the passage of time) of the Extradition Act 1989; whether the accusation was made in good faith and whether it disclosed an extradition offence in relation to an Italian conviction for murder.

Labsi v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Government of France	169
Issue: Whether L’s extradition to France would breach his right to a fair trial, be unjust or breach Art 3 ECHR