2011
|
|
Cases Reported |
| Sawko v Circuit Court in Gorzow Wielkopolski, Poland | 1 |
| Issue: Whether the activation of a suspended sentence constituted a fresh conviction. | |
| Vitaliy Zaporozhchenko and Iulia Redya v Westminster Magistrates’ Court and the Secretary of State for the Home Department | 4 |
| Issue: Whether the decision of the Secretary of State to extradite the appellants had fallen within the two-month period under s99 of the Extradition Act 2003 upon the expiry of which they were entitled to be discharged. | |
| Mikatavicius v Prosecutor General’s Office, Lithuania | 8 |
| Issue: Whether expert evidence on prison conditions in Lithuanian could be compelling evidence for the purposes of Art 3 of the ECHR. | |
| R v Royston Jones | 10 |
| Issue: Whether the rule of specialty prevented dealing with J for an offence of failing to surrender committed prior to extradition which was not contained in the extradition request. | |
| Jeffrey Tesler v Government of the United States of America | 12 |
| Issue: Whether (1) the appellant’s conduct as an alleged participant in a global conspiracy to bribe Nigerian officials had a sufficient link with the United States; and (2) whether extradition was barred by reason of the passage of time. | |
| Laurent Selami Cakollari v Government of the Republic of Albania | 19 |
| Issue: Whether it was an abuse of process to seek C’s extradition on an accusation warrant while simultaneously proceeding with his trial in absence; whether extradition would breach Art 6 in that C would upon return have no absolute right to a retrial. | |
| Bergman v District Court in Kladno, Czech Republic | 27 |
| Issue: The rigidity of the requirements set out in s26(4) of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Bartolomej Budaj v District Court of Presov, Slovak Republic | 28 |
| Issue: Whether B’s extradition was barred as being oppressive due to delay, pursuant to s14 of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Sobczak v Judicial Authority in Poland | 30 |
| Issue: Whether fresh evidence sought to be adduced by S on appeal was inadmissible for the purposes of s27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 as it had been available at the extradition hearing. | |
| Kasprzak v Warsaw Regional Court, Poland | 33 |
| Issue: Whether, following a requested person’s unsuccessful appeal against extradition and the requesting state’s failure to remove him within the required period under the Extradition Act 2003 s36(2), the High Court had the power to order the requested person’s discharge under s36(8) for non-compliance with that obligation. | |
| Targosinski v Judicial Authority of Poland | 41 |
| Issue: Whether extradition would violate Art 3 ECHR by reason of prison conditions in Poland. | |
| Irfan Musa Patel v The Office of the Attorney General, Frankfurt | 42 |
| Issue: Whether the requirements of s2 of the Extradition Act 2003 were satisfied; and whether P’s extradition was being sought merely for the purposes of investigation, rather than for prosecution. | |
| Von Der Pahlen v Leoben Regional Court, Austria | 51 |
| Issue: Whether an appeal could be reopened pursuant to CPR 52.17 (1). | |
| Varga v Szolnok City Court, Hungary | 52 |
| Issue: Whether the expert evidence submitted was enough to satisfy s13 (1) (b) of the Extradition Act. | |
| Kubiak v Judicial Authority of Poland | 56 |
| Issue: Whether the activation of K’s suspended sentence of imprisonment in the requesting state amounted to a fresh conviction for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003 s20. | |
| Marius Wrobel v Poland | 57 |
| Issue: Whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive on grounds of the risk that the appellant would commit suicide if extradited. | |
| Janiga v Usti nad Labem Regional Court, Czech Republic | 61 |
| Issue: Whether extradition would subject J to a real risk of treatment contrary to Art 3 ECHR, by virtue of having to undergo court-ordered anti-androgen treatment (“chemical castration”) as part of his sentence. | |
| Cepkauskas v District Court of Marijampole, Lithuania | 66 |
| Issue: Whether extradition to Lithuania to stand trial for offences allegedly committed thirteen years previously would be unjust or oppressive. | |
| Zboinski v Circuit Law Court in Swidnica Poland | 71 |
| Issue: Whether the courts could disregard the fact that individual offences, listed in a European arrest warrant, might not satisfy the definition of “extradition offences”. | |
| Cristian Popa v Regional Court in Plzen Mestro, Czech Republic | 76 |
| Issue: Whether the CPS’ failure to notify the court and P of the withdrawal and replacement of a warrant, with the result that P remained in detention when he was entitled to be discharged, amounted to an abuse of process. | |
| Timothy Halahan v Audiencia Provincial De Gupuzkoa, Spain | 85 |
| Issue: Waiver of privilege and whether there can be an adverse inference drawn from unwillingness to withdraw privilege. | |
| Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office (a German Judicial Authority) v Hulusi Altun | 87 |
| Issue: (1) Whether extradition to Germany to stand trial on offences for which A had already been sentenced in Turkey, albeit that an amnesty meant he would not have to serve any time in prison, was barred by double jeopardy; (2) whether the issue of this EAW constituted an abuse of process in that A had already been discharged from an identical prior warrant in 2006 on grounds of double jeopardy. | |
| R (Koniak) v Regional Court for Warsaw, Poland | 95 |
| Issue: Whether, in the case of a European arrest warrant withdrawn after notice of appeal to the High Court had been given, the Magistrates’ Court had concurrent power to order the person’s discharge. | |
| Lubomir Balint v Municipal Court in Prague, Czech Republic | 97 |
| Issue: (1) Whether the offending conduct alleged of B - embezzling his employer’s funds - was adequately described; (2) whether the conduct alleged would constitute an offence in the UK. | |
| Agius v Court of Magistrates, Malta | 103 |
| Issue: Whether there was clear and cogent evidence to rebut the presumption that a Category 1 country would honour its human rights obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. All authorities which required a human rights inquiry under s21 only in wholly exceptional circumstances were not to be followed. The correct approach was that given in Targosinski v Poland. | |
| Kane v Trial Court No 5 Marbella, Spain | 108 |
| Issue: Whether K had filed and served notice of appeal within the period prescribed by s26(4) of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Mazurkiewicz v Rzeszow Circuit Court, Poland | 117 |
| Issue: The test which the Court should apply in cases concerning opposition to extradition on the grounds of suicide risk. | |
| Soltysiak v Judicial Authority of Poland | 124 |
| Issue: Whether S was entitled to argue on appeal that the copyright offences for which his extradition was sought were not extradition offences, even though that issue had not been raised before the magistrates’ court. | |
| Roberto Penta v District Public Prosecutors Office Zwolle-Lelystad, Netherlands | 128 |
| Issue: Whether due to lapse of time the extradition should not be permitted. Change of circumstances and their impact on claims of oppression. | |
| Ivan Janovic v Prosecutor General’s Office Lithuania | 133 |
| Issue: (1) Whether requesting J’s extradition to Lithuania to stand trial for an offence allegedly committed in Belarus was an abuse of process; (2) whether there was a real risk of J suffering a flagrant denial of his rights under Art 6 ECHR in Lithuania; (3) whether prison conditions in Lithuania created a real risk of an Art 3 violation; and (4) whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive by reason of the passage of time. | |
| Vatoci v Government of Albania | 142 |
| Issue: Whether the request identified the right person for the purposes of s78 of the Extradition Act 2003; whether photos submitted were admissible under s202 of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Laskowski v District Court of Legnica, Poland | 145 |
| Issue: Whether the court should grant L an extension of time for his removal to enable him to finish his prescribed course of medication, even though his medical condition fell short of the requirements set out in s25 Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Lawera v Regional court of Krosno, Poland | 148 |
| Issue: Whether an error in relation to the term of years served would render the EAW invalid. | |
| Echimov v Court of Babadag, Romania | 149 |
| Issue: Whether particularisation of the index offence and the previous offence were required under s2(6)(b) Extradition Act 2003 where the sentence for the previous offence was activated by the index offence | |
| Szelagowski v Regional Court Of Piotrkow Trybunalski Poland | 156 |
| Issue: Whether delivery of a letter that referred to the existence of a notice of appeal was capable of constituting notice of an appeal. | |
| Elbeyati v Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina | 159 |
| Issue: Whether the traffic offence for which E’s extradition had been ordered would, had the conduct occurred in the UK, amount to the domestic offence of causing death by dangerous driving. | |
| Jose Luis Inzunza v Government of the USA; Janjira Jeffery Smith v Government of the USA; Phillip Harkins v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Government of the USA; Marcus Bebb Jones v Government of the USA | 162 |
| Issue: Whether extradition of the appellants would expose them to a real risk of treatment contrary to Art 3 ECHR by virtue of the sentences they would likely receive if convicted. | |
| Zadvornovs v Riga City Vidzene Suburb Court, Latvia | 175 |
| Issue: Whether Z’s non-citizenship status could trigger s13 (b) of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Ian Griffin v City of Westminster Magistrates Court and Tribunal de Grande Instance, France; Ian Griffin v Tribunal de Grande Instance France | 176 |
| Issue: (1) Whether the District Judge had power to proceed in the absence of the requested person; (2) if so, whether this power had been lawfully exercised; and (3) whether it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite G in light of his alleged suicide risk. | |
| Istanek v District Court of Prenov, Czech Republic | 186 |
| Issue: Whether the unqualified right under Czech law of a person convicted in absence to obtain a full retrial meant that, under the EAW scheme, he was not a convicted person but in fact an accused person. | |
| Brodka v Military District Court in Warsaw, Poland | 190 |
| Issue: Whether the District Judge had been correct to order B’s extradition given that the sentence was activated in his absence. | |
| Baghishyan v District Court in Zamusc, Poland | 192 |
| Issue: Whether the court will adjourn proceedings so that possible compromises can be awaited. | |
| " "HH and PH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa (on behalf of the Italian Judicial Authorities) And X, Y and Z (through the Official Solicitor, their Litigation Friend) – interested parties" | 193 |
| Issue: Whether the best interests of HH’s and PH’s children overrode the public interest in their parents’ extradition. | |
| Musikyavicius v The Government of the Russian Federation | 208 |
| Issue: Whether the District Judge was correct to dismiss the appellant’s claim that by reason of the passage of time it would be oppressive to extradite him, and secondly, to dismiss his claim that his extradition would be incompatible with his rights under Art 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. | |
| Tworkowski v Judicial Authority of Poland | 212 |
| Issue: Whether extradition would expose T to a real risk of treatment contrary to Art 3 on the basis of alleged inability on the part of Polish authorities to protect him from perceived risks to his life in prison. | |
| Ciesielski v District Court in Kalisz, Poland | 215 |
| Issue: Whether a European arrest warrant could contain both accusation and conviction matters and still be a valid warrant for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Harmatos v Office of the King’s Prosecutor in Dendermond, Belgium | 220 |
| Issue: Whether reference to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment in a European Arrest Warrant invalidated the warrant on the basis of a failure to comply with the Extradition Act 2003 s2(6)(e). | |
| Marius Artur Sitek v Circuit Court in Swidnica, Poland | 227 |
| Issue: Whether allegations of acquiring property in circumstances the accused person ought to have known were illegal copies equated to the domestic offence of possessing criminal property contrary to s329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. | |
| Wars v Lublin Provincial Court, Poland | 233 |
| Issue: Whether driving in a state of inebriation is an extradition offence for the purposes of s65(3)(b) of the Extradtion Act 2003. | |
| Pomiechowski v District Court of Legunica 59-200 Poland; Rozanski v Regional Court 3 Penal Department Poland; Ungureanu v Tribunalul Maramures (Maramures County Criminal Offences Court); Lukaszewski v Polish Court of Grudziadz | 236 |
| Issue: Whether the appellants had given notice of appeal in accordance with the timeframe and requirements of s26(4) of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Barnes v Government of the United States of America | 239 |
| Issue: Whether B’s extradition would violate the specialty rule in s95 of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Kevin Richard Halligen v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Interested Party: Government of the United States of America) | 242 |
| Issue: Whether notice of appeal had been given within the time limit prescribed by s108 of the Extradition Act 2003; whether s3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 required s3 to be interpreted in a way that allowed courts to extend the time limit. | |
| Office of the State Prosecutor of Milan, Italy v Maria Elena Marisa Merico | 248 |
| Issue: Whether the District Judge erred in finding that extradition would be oppressive by reason of the passage of time. | |
| R v Noel Cunningham | 251 |
| Issue: Whether an offence of possessing a firearm with intent to escape was encompassed within the order for the appellant’s extradition to Britain, and thus validly added to the indictment. | |
| Filipek v Lublin Provincial Court Poland | 254 |
| Issue: Whether the withdrawal of the first EAW and its replacement with a second one constituted abuse of process. | |
| Sofia City Court, Bulgaria v Dimintrinka Atanasova-Kalaidzhieva | 256 |
| Issue: Whether the District Judge erred in staying the extradition proceedings as an abuse of process on account of allegations of serious prosecutorial misconduct. | |
| Rimas v Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania | 267 |
| Issue: Whether the certification of a European arrest warrant by the Serious Organised Crime Agency was rendered invalid where, by an oversight, it was signed but not dated. | |
| Zacharski v Poland Regional Court in Lubin, Poland | 268 |
| Issue: Whether a European arrest which was both an accusation and a conviction warrant can be validly issued for the purposes of s2(2) of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Khurts Bat v Investigating Judge of the German Federal Court (Interested Parties: Government of Mongolia, Secretary of State for the Home Department) | 272 |
| Issue: Whether B, a Mongolian official, was entitled to immunity from prosecution by virtue of diplomatic status or official capacity; whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had abused the court’s process by facilitating his visit to London knowing he would be arrested on a German EAW. | |
| Ernest-Francisc Bohm v Romanian Judicial Authority | 287 |
| Issue: Whether B would, upon extradition to Romania, be entitled to a retrial of the matter for which he was convicted in absentia. | |
| Lorencas v Deputy Prosecutor General, Lithuania | 289 |
| Issue: Whether extradition to Lithuania would be unjust or oppressive by reason of the passage of time. | |
| Prahl v District Court in Kwldzynie | 292 |
| Issue: Whether the failure to set out the grounds of appeal in the appeal notice sufficed to warrant dismissal of the appeal. | |
| Guardian News and Media Limited v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and The Government of the United States of America (interested party) | 293 |
| Issue: Whether a District Judge’s decision not to disclose documents to a third party amounted to a “criminal cause or matter”, meaning that per s18(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the High Court’s decision upholding the District Judge’s order. | |
| Ahorugeze v Sweden | 299 |
| Issue: Whether extradition to Rwanda would breach Art 3 ECHR by virtue of prison conditions and Art 6 by virtue of alleged difficulties in securing the evidence of defence witnesses and the alleged lack of impartiality and independence of the judiciary. | |
| Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority | 320 |
| Issue: Whether a Prosecutor qualifies as Judicial Authority for EAW purposes. Classification of offences satisfies the requirements of dual criminality; whether it was proportionate to issue an EAW. | |
| Clark v Government of The United States of America | 344 |
| Issue: Whether it was appropriate to adjourn proceedings in order to obtain expert evidence. | |
| Stoilov v District Prosecutor Stara Zagora, Government of Bulgaria | 345 |
| Issue: Whether the repeal of legislation affected the validity of the charges brought against S for the purposes of extradition. | |
| Seliga v District Court in Kalisz, Poland | 348 |
| Issue: Whether there has been an abuse of process in light of a voluntary agreement that C had with the Maltese Judicial Authority. | |
| Clayton v Court of Magistrates, Malta | 350 |
| Issue: Whether there has been an abuse of process in light of a voluntary agreement that C had with the Maltese Judicial Authority. | |
| Gilun v Circuit Court in Olsztyn, Poland | 352 |
| Issue: Whether the EAW complied with s2(6)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Glodek v Regional Court in Elblag II, Criminal Division, Poland | 354 |
| Issue: Whether the Framework List offence of fraud was properly formulated for the purposes of a European Arrest Warrant. | |
| Rozanski v Regional Court 3 Penal Department, Poland | 355 |
| Issue: Whether service of front sheet of notice of appeal satisfies s26 of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Koziel v District Court in Kielce, Poland | 356 |
| Issue: Whether the EAW issued by the Polish Judicial Authority violated s2(4)(d) of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Oleg Panteleev v District Prosecutor of East Finland | 359 |
| Issue: Whether the EAW against P was properly constructed as an accusation warrant. | |
| Liszewski v The Circuit Court in Katowice Poland | 362 |
| Issue: Whether L was sought for investigation or prosecution. | |
| Nawara v District Court in Krakow, Poland | 363 |
| Issue: Whether N could invoke s21(1) of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Pukownik v Polish Judicial Authority | 365 |
| Issue: Whether, under s20 of the Extradition Act 2003 the Prosecuting Authorities might have a burden to make relevant enquiries about the mode of activation of suspended sentences. | |
| Ragan v Circuit Court in Lublin, Poland | 366 |
| Issue: Whether insulting a police officer was an extradition offence. | |
| Smolkovs v Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Latvia | 367 |
| Issue: Whether a European arrest warrant issued by a public prosecutor is a valid public warrant issued by a judicial authority within the meaning of s2(2) and s66 of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Lasinski v Circuit Court of Zielona Gora, Poland | 368 |
| Issue: Whether the fact that separate proceedings for subsequent charges were being carried out in the UK prevented extradition to the requesting country. | |
| Andreas Kodos (aka Jetmir Olltari) v Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Lithuania | 369 |
| Issue: Whether the alleged offences relating to prostitution and people trafficking amounted to extradition offences by virtue of s64(3) of the Extradition Act. | |
| Kaminski, Lukaszuk, Ciarach, Ziolkowski v Judicial Authority of Poland, District Court of Czestochcwa, Poland, Circuit Court in Katowice, Poland, Regional Court in Plock, Poland | 375 |
| Issue: Whether the notice of appeal against an extradition order should contain grounds of appeal. | |
| O'Connell v Judicial Authority of Santa Cruz De Tenerife | 377 |
| Issue: Whether it was oppressive to extradite O by reason of the passage of time. | |
| The Judicial Authority of the Court of First Instance, Hasselt, Belgium v Warren Bartlett | 380 |
| Issue: Whether the court should consider extrinsic evidence in deciding whether the subject of the warrant was sought for prosecution in the requesting state for the offences specified in the warrant. | |
| Jindrich Kovac v The Regional Court in Prague | 389 |
| Issue: Whether it would be oppressive to extradite K in light of the wholly unexplained delay of 15 years between the commission of the offences and the issue of extradition proceedings. | |
| Daniel Palczynski v The District Court in Zamosc (a Polish Judicial Authority) | 391 |
| Issue: Whether P’s extradition to Poland was barred by Arts 2, 3 and 8 of the ECHR. | |
| B v The District Court in Trutnov, the District Court in Liberec (Two Czech Judicial Authorities) | 396 |
| Issue: Whether B’s extradition was disproportionate in light of her and her young children’s rights under Art 8 ECHR considering that she was a single mother and would be extradited for what were said to be trivial offences. | |
| Naczmanski v Regional Court in Wloclawek | 403 |
| Issue: Whether the EAWs were invalid, whether the Polish authorities were committing an abuse of process in seeking N’s extradition; whether the double criminality requirements had been complied with; whether extradition was barred by reason of the rule against double jeopardy; and whether extradition would breach Art 3 ECHR. | |
| Tomasz Dabkowski v District Court in Gorzow, Poland | 408 |
| Issue: Whether extradition was barred under s21 of the Extradition Act, on the basis that the appellant’s human rights under Arts 2 and 3 ECHR would be infringed if he were returned to Poland. | |
| Denis v The Regional Court in Warsaw (a Polish Judicial Authority) | 410 |
| Issue: Whether the EAWs provided sufficient particulars as required by s2 of the Extradition Act. | |
| The Government of Lithuania v AI | 414 |
| Issue: Whether A’s extradition was a disproportionate interference with her Art 8 rights. | |
| Marius Wysocki v Polish Judicial Authority | 416 |
| Issue: Whether W’s extradition would be an abuse of process where he had served his entire sentence while on remand in the UK. | |
| Jeziorowski v District Court in Torun, Poland (No 1) | 421 |
| Issue: Whether J had to be discharged as the proceedings against him had not been opened within 21 days of his arrest. | |
| Jeziorowski v Regional Court of Torun, Poland (No 2) (also known as Jeriowski v Poland) | 423 |
| Issue: Whether extradition would be a disproportionate interference with J’s Art 8 rights. | |
| Rozakmens v Judicial Authority of Latvia | 426 |
| Issue: Whether the District Judge had made the right assessment in deciding whether the Latvian breath alcohol measurement could be translated into an English measurement; whether it was oppressive to extradite R in light of his medical condition. | |
| Florescu v Lasi High Court of Law Romania | 430 |
| Issue: Whether an adjournment to switch representatives had to be granted. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
