2006

Cases Reported

McCaughey v Government of the USA and Secretary of State for the Home Department	1
Issue: Whether the appellant’s removal to the USA was barred by reason of his obese medical condition.

Kociukow v District Court of Bialystok III Penal Division (a Polish Judicial Authority)	4
Issue: Whether it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite K by reason of the passage of time.

Migliorelli v Secretary of State for the Home Department	7
Issue: Whether, considering that the appellant had been convicted in his absence, it would, in terms of s6 of the Extradition Act 1989, be in the interests of justice to return him to Italy on the ground of that conviction.

Hunt v The Court at First Instance, Antwerp, Belgium	16
Issue: Whether the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) contained the statement required by s2(3) Extradition Act 2003 that the person was accused in Belgium of the commission of an offence specified in EAW; whether the EAW contained the information required by s2(4) of the 2003 Act citing the provision of Belgian law under which the conduct was alleged to constitute an offence; and whether the extradition of the appellant was barred by reason of injustice and/or oppression arising from the passage of time since the alleged offences.

Boudhiba v Central Examining Court No 5 of the National Court of Justice, Madrid, Spain	20
Issue: Whether an order for extradition to Spain should be overturned on various grounds, including abuse of process, human rights and non-compliance with the requirements of the Extradition Act 2003

Welsh and Thrasher v (1) Secretary of State for the Home Department and (2) Government of the USA	31
Issue: Whether the US government would breach the specialty rule and whether, therefore, the requirements of s95 Extradition Act 2003 were not met.

Bermingham and others v (1) Director of the Serious Fraud Office, (2) HM Attorney General, (3) Secretary of State for the Home Department, (4) Government of the USA	52
Issue: Whether a trial should occur in England or the US; whether extradition to the US was compatible with the ECHR; and whether effective specialty arrangements with the US were in place for the purposes of s95 of the Extradition Act 2003.

Norris v Secretary of State for the Home Department	85
Issue: Whether the Secretary of State was correct to continue to designate the USA as a territory not required to show a prima facie case given the USA’s failure to ratify the 2003 US-UK Extradition Treaty, which had created asymmetry in the extradition arrangements between the two countries.

Hall v Government of Germany	94
Issue: Whether a European Arrest Warrant was valid in the absence of information as to the legal provisions which the conduct was said to have violated.

Amoako v Director of Public Prosecutions	97
Issue: Whether A’s notice of appeal had been filed in time.

Arain v (1) Government of Germany and (2) Secretary of State for the Home Department	99
Issue: Whether the District Judge should have heard argument that part of A’s conduct was not criminal in the UK in relation to his arguments that his return would violate Art 8 of the ECHR and whether there was a risk of a breach of the specialty rule upon A’s return to Germany.

Fofana and Belise v Deputy Prosecutor, Tribunal de Grande Instance de Meaux, France	102
Issue: Whether extradition was barred by double jeopardy by virtue of criminal proceedings in the UK, and whether the EAW accurately or adequately described commission by F and B of an extradition offence.

Vey v The Office of the Public Prosecutor of the County Court of Montluçon, France	110
Issue: Whether the Appellant was being sought for interrogation or prosecution in France.

Colda v Government of Romania	118
Issue: Whether C’s extradition would violate Art 8 ECHR by virtue of disproportionate interference with her right to family life, in particular with her daughter, and whether her extradition would be unjust or oppressive due to the passage of time.

Dabas v High Court of Justice, Madrid, Spain	123
Issue: Whether the warrant satisfied the requirements of the 2003 Act, whether a separate certificate was required to certify that the conduct fell within the European Framework list, whether D’s extradition was compatible with his Convention rights and whether he was at risk of refoulement.

Atilla v Government of Turkey and the Secretary of State	133
Issue: Whether the offence for which A’s extradition was sought had become time-barred under Turkish law and whether his extradition was therefore barred by Art 10 of the European Convention on Extradition Order 2001.

Stepp v (1) Government of the USA and (2) Secretary of State for the Home Department	138
Issue: Whether S’s extradition was barred either because the case against him was allegedly fabricated or because specialty arrangements were allegedly not in place with the USA as required by s95 Extradition Act 2003.

Miklis v Deputy Prosecutor General of Lithuania	146
Issue: Whether M’s extradition would breach his human rights and/or whether it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him by reason of his mental condition.

Kuprevicius v Vice Minister of Justice, Ministry of Justice, Lithuania	151
Issue: Whether a European Arrest Warrant met the requirements of s2 Extradition Act 2003 in stating that K was unlawfully at large following conviction.

Hilali v Central Court of Criminal Proceedings Number 5 of the National Court, Madrid, and Senior District Judge, Bow Street Magistrates’ Court	154
Issue: Whether H’s identity had not been proved; whether he was accused of an offence in Spain or merely suspected; whether suitable specialty arrangements with Spain were in place; whether H’s extradition was barred on the basis that, as a suspected Islamic terrorist, he would be mistreated and not have a fair trial in Spain; whether the real purpose of the request was to deport H to Morocco, where he would be mistreated; and whether it would be an abuse of process to extradite H to Spain.

Mitoi v Government of Romania	168
Issue: Whether the District Judge had been right to conclude that M had deliberately absented himself from trial, and to what standard of proof that had to be proved.

Chalitovas v State Secretary of Ministry of Justice, Lithuania	172
Issue: Whether s63 of the Extradition Act 2003 applied only to “over the wall” cases of escape from prison, or whether it could apply to a situation the person had been convicted and sentenced in another country and was unlawfully at large from the requesting state without ever having been imprisoned there.

Hosseini, Ahmed and Zada v Head of the Prosecution Department of the Courts of Higher Instance, Paris, France	176
Issue: Whether the European Arrest Warrants set out extradition offences; whether extradition would breach Art 8 ECHR.

Dziedic v Government of Germany	185
Issue: Whether D’s extradition would be unjust by reason of the passage of 15 years since the alleged offences and so barred under the Extradition Act 2003.

Carlyle-Clarke v Secretary of State for the Home Department	187
Issue: Whether fresh material indicated bad faith on the part of the USA, undermining prior decisions of the Secretary of State and the Divisional Court.

Da An Chen v Government of Romania	192
Issue: Whether D’s extradition was barred by the passage of time or by the fact that he was tried and sentenced in absentia, and had not deliberately absented himself from his trial.

Pahlen v Government of Austria	197
Issue: Whether a European Arrest Warrant was invalid for want of particulars; whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive by reason of the passage of time.

Prenga v Republic of Albania	200
Issue: Whether P’s conviction was the result of a confession or admission obtained by torture or other ill treatment amounting to a breach of Art 3 ECHR, with the result that his extradition would be barred.

Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Montpellier v Wade	204
Issue: Whether an appeal hearing at which W’s acquittal was overturned was a trial; whether he had deliberately absented himself from his trial and whether his return would violate s20 Extradition Act 2003.

Oliver v Secretary of State for the Home Department	207
Issue: Whether the decision of the German Constitutional Court to declare the German European Arrest Warrant Act to be unconstitutional and void in its entirety meant that the Secretary of State had to change the designation of Germany as a category 1 (European Arrest Warrant) territory under the Extradition Act 2003.

USA v Stanley Tollman and Beatrice Tollman; Central Examining Court, Criminal Court of the National Court, Madrid v Sander and 6 other interested parties	216
Issue: The procedure to be adopted where disclosure was sought in relation to an allegation of abuse of process in extradition proceedings, and whether the Extradition Act 1989 or the Extradition Act 2003 applied when requests for extradition had first been made, and then withdrawn, before the commencement of the 2003 Act.

Prancs v Rezekne Court of Latvia	234
Issue: Whether it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite P, either by virtue of his mental condition or the passage of time, and whether his return would breach Arts 3 or 6 of the ECHR.

Virciglio v The Judicial Authority of the Graz High Court, Austria	238
Issue: Whether a hearing at which V’s sentence was increased was a conviction in absence and whether V’s return would violate ss20 and 21 Extradition Act 2003.

Slator v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court (Defendant), High Court of Dublin (Interested Party)	243
Issue: Whether, when the person whose extradition is sought is serving a domestic sentence, the extradition hearing should be adjourned to a time close to his earliest release date.

Azcarate v Government of the USA	246
Issue: Whether A’s extradition was barred by the passage of time.

Calder v The Public Prosecutors Office of Landshut, Germany	249
Issue: Whether it would be unjust to extradite C by reason of the passage of time.

Filipczak v Provincial Court (5th Criminal District) Warsaw-Praga, Poland	252
Issue: Whether it would be oppressive by reason of the passage of time to extradite F to Poland.

Government of Romania v Ceausescu	255
Issue: Whether Art 5 European Convention would be breached by returning C to Romania following his in absentia conviction as he would not be eligible for bail pending re-trial.

Government of India v Rajarathinam	258
Issue: Whether an affidavit which was not clearly the summary of a statement made by another person constituted "evidence" under s84 Extradition Act 2003.

Cebelis v the Prosecutor-General’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania	261
Issue: Whether a European Arrest Warrant was invalid because the conduct allegedly did not correspond to the provisions of foreign law cited in the EAW and whether C’s extradition was compatible with his human rights.

Trepac v Presiding Judge, County Court in Trencin, Slovak Republic	265
Issue: Whether the European Arrest Warrant has to specify the sentence imposed with respect to each offence of which a person had been convicted.

Yarrow and Tonge v Public Prosecutor’s Office of Appeal of Crete	269
Issue: Whether the extradition of Y and T was oppressive or unjust due to the passage of time and changes in their circumstances and whether their extradition would violate Arts 3 and/or 5 ECHR.

Lisowski v Regional Court of Bialystok (Poland)	272
Issue: Whether the extradition of L would be unjust or oppressive due to the passage of time.

Ahmad and Aswat v Government of the USA	276
Issue: Whether, if the appellants were extradited to the USA, there was a real prospect that they would be held at Guantanamo Bay, made subject to “extraordinary rendition”, subjected to Special Administrative Measures on a discriminatory basis or tried in a manner that would violate the ECHR and/or the Torture Convention

Maxwell-King v Government of the USA	297
Issue: Whether M’s extradition was barred by double jeopardy or the passage of time.

John v Government of the USA	305
Issue: Whether J’s extradition was barred by double jeopardy.