|Caldarelli v The Court of Naples, Italy
|Issue: Whether there was reasonable cause for the delay in extraditing the appellant to Italy while extradition proceedings were in progress in relation to subsequent EAWs
|Owens v (1) City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Defendant); (2) Court of First Instance, Marbella, Spain and (3) The Serious Organised Crime Agency (“SOCA”)
|Issue: Whether the District Judge erred by not ordering O’s discharge pursuant to s36(8) Extradition Act 2003.
|Atkinson and Binnington v Supreme Court of Cyprus
|Issue: Whether extradition was barred under s20 Extradition Act 2003 or incompatible with Art 6 ECHR when the subjects had been acquitted in their presence but convicted in their absence in a hearing before the Supreme Court of Cyprus at which there was no power to consider fresh evidence.
|Kolanowski v Circuit Court in Zielona Gora (a Polish Judicial Authority)
|Issue: Whether the proceedings before the District Judge had been unfair, whether the double criminality requirement had been met and whether it would be oppressive to extradite K by reason of the passage of time.
|Henderson v Court of Appeal of Aix en Provence
|Issue: Whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal that was lodged out-of-time.
|Hoholm v Government of Norway
|Issue: Whether a new issue could be raised for the first time on appeal and whether the double criminality requirement was met with regard to the offence of a parent failing to return her children after having unlawfully removed them from a country.
|Baranauskas v Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania (a Lithuanian Judicial Authority)
|Issue: Whether, on return to Lithuania, there was a real risk that B, as a sex offender, would receive treatment in Lithuanian prisons that would breach Art 3 of the ECHR.
|R (Gary McKinnon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (Gary McKinnon) v DPP
|Issue: Whether, by virtue of M having Asperger’s Syndrome, and the implications of that condition for his claim that extradition would breach his human rights, the DPP’s decision not to prosecute him in the UK for computer-hacking offences and the Secretary of State’s decision to order his extradition to the USA could be successfully challenged by way of judicial review.
|R (Bary and Al Fawwaz) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
|Issue: Whether the extradition of B and F to the US on terrorist charges breached their rights under the ECHR, in particular in relation to the imposition of Special Administrative Measures and the conditions of prolonged solitary confinement in the Federal “Supermax” facility, ADX Florence.
|Nanarova v District Court in Usti Nad Labem, Czech Republic (a Czech Judicial Authority)
|Issue: Whether the offence of endangering the morale of juveniles was an extradition offence and whether N’s extradition would be incompatible with her right to respect for her private and family life under Art 8 of the ECHR, in particular given the impact that her extradition would have on her impairing-impaired son.
|Atanasova v Governor of HMP Holloway and Government of Bulgaria
|Issue: Whether A’s extradition to Bulgaria to face charges of murder, manslaughter and theft would be unjust or oppressive because the accusation against her was not made in good faith in the interests of justice
|Kozluk v Circuit Court Lublin (a Polish Judicial Authority)
|Issue: Whether the extradition hearing provided for in s8 of the Extradition Act 2003 had begun within the required period, and if not, whether there had been a reasonable cause for the delay.
|Lendvai v Veszprem City Court, Hungary (a Hungarian Judicial Authority)
|Issue: Whether, if extradited, L would be prejudiced at trial or punished by reason of her Roma ethnicity and/or sexual orientation and whether L’s extradition was compatible with her rights under the ECHR, in particular in light of the risk that she would attempt to commit suicide if extradited.
|Wenting v High Court of Valenciennes (a French Judicial Authority)
|Issue: Whether W’s extradition would be oppressive by reason of the passage of time.
|Warren Hewitt, Andrew Woodward v First Instance and Magistrates' Court Number One of Denia, Spain
|Issue: Whether the EAW contained sufficient particulars; and whether it was unjust or oppressive to extradite H in light of his mental condition.
|Marcin Bukowski v Regional Court in Bydgoszcz
|Issue: Whether B had deliberately absented himself from his trial in Poland or whether he absented himself by reason of threats amounting to duress; whether duress could ever prevent an absence from a trial from being deliberate.
|Arunthavaraja v Administrative Court Office and Paphos District Court, Cyprus
|Issue: Whether an application for judicial review - challenging a refusal to issue a notice of appeal, based on the fact that the notice of appeal was filed outside the time limit of seven days – should be allowed.
|Dunne v High Court Dublin, an Irish Judicial Authority
|Issue: Whether extradition was compatible with D’s human rights under Arts 2 and 3 ECHR; and whether the Notice of Appeal was filed, and served, in time.
|Luczak v District Court in Sieradz, Poland
|Issue: Whether the conduct described in the European Arrest Warrant satisfied the required dual criminality test in order to constitute an extradition offence.
|Paul Johnson v State Prosecutor at the Tribunal De Grande Instance De Lille France, Martin Christopher Joseph Stevens v Judicial Authority of the Government of France
|Issue: Whether a European Arrest Warrant was valid where it did not specify whether it was an accusation or a conviction warrant.
|Frantisek Balog v Judicial Authority of the Slovak Republic
|Issue: Whether extradition was proportionate in light of B’s rights under Art 8 ECHR.
|Cleere v The High Court of the Republic of Ireland
|Issue: Whether it was oppressive to extradite the appellant in light of the delay.
|Pawel Sciezka v The Court in Sad Okregowy, Kielce, Poland
|Issue: Whether it was unjust or oppressive to extradite S in light of the passage of time.
|Robert Gradica v Public Prosecutor's Office attached to the Court of Turin
|Issue: Whether G’s extradition to Italy complied with his rights under Art 6 ECHR, where he had been convicted in Italy in his absence and the matter whether or not he would receive a retrial in Italy was at the discretion of the Italian judiciary.
|Constantin Sandi v the Craiova Court, Romania
|Issue: Whether “conviction” European Arrest Warrants required the same level of particularisation as “accusation” European Arrest Warrants.
|Teodor Ficuta v Trial Court of Piatra Neamt (A Romanian Judicial Authority)
|Issue: Whether a European Arrest Warrant breached s2 of the Extradition Act 2003 for failing to particularise a conviction which resulted in a suspended sentence, where the suspension was later revoked and that term formed part of the sentence for which the warrant was issued.
|Battistini v The Court of Naples, Italy (an Italian Judicial Authority)
|Issue: Whether B’s extradition to Italy would be unjust or oppressive by reason of the passage of time, and whether the proceedings constituted an abuse of process on the basis that the offences were allegedly statute-barred in Italy.
|Benko v Law Enforcement Division of Veszprem County Court, Hungary (a Hungarian Judicial Authority)
|Issue: Whether, having been convicted in his absence of one offence, B would be entitled to a retrial in Hungary with the rights set out in s20(8) of the Extradition Act 2003.
|Sondy v a Polish Judicial Authority
|Issue: The procedure to be followed when allegations of incompetence are made against former legal representatives; and whether fresh evidence was admissible on Fenyvesi principles.
|Raymond L v The High Court in Dublin (an Irish Judicial Authority)
|Issue: Whether it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite L to Ireland to face trial for alleged sexual offences due to the passage of time; whether the Irish courts would inevitably conclude that L was unfit to plead or properly conduct a trial due to his mental and physical condition.
|" "Mann v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Serious Organised Crime Agency and the Judicial Tribunal of Albufeira, Portugal (a Portuguese Judicial Authority) "
|Issue: Whether the High Court could intervene by way of judicial review where M had lost his right of appeal due to the failure of his previous solicitors to lodge his appeal notice in time.
|Hines v Secretary of State for the Home Department
|Issue: Whether H was entitled to be discharged under s16 of the 1989 Extradition Act due to the Secretary of State’s delay in taking a decision as to his extradition.
|Dula v Director of Public Prosecutions of Zwolle Lelystad, Holland
|Issue: Whether D, who had been held in a prison outside of the country where his trial was proceeding, had “deliberately absented himself” from that trial.
|R (Gomes) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
|Issue: Whether the decision-making process of the Secretary of State in declining to withdraw an extradition order was flawed or unreasonable due to failure to consider a change in circumstances and to conduct a proper investigation.
|Kwasny v Regional Court in Opole, Poland (a Polish Judicial Authority)
|Issue: Whether K should be extradited to serve a term of imprisonment when he had already spent more time detained on remand in the UK than the sentence to be served in the requesting state.
|Dare v Principal Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife
|Issue: Whether the extradition order made against D was barred by the passage of time under s14 Extradition Act 2003; whether a fair trial was still possible and whether D fit the definition of a “fugitive”.
|Asztaslos v Szekszard City Court, Hungary
|Issue: Whether A’s case may be heard on the merits after his accidental extradition; whether the EAW was issued for the purpose of A being prosecuted or for the purpose of conducting an investigation; and whether the alleged offences were “extradition offences” under the Act.
|Secchi v Deputy Prosecutor of the Republic of Italy
|Issue: Whether S’s extradition was barred by the passage of time.
|Akyol v DPP Zwolle Lelystad Netherlands
|Issue: Whether it would be oppressive to require A to present himself for the service of a sentence of imprisonment, having regard to the passage of time and A’s personal circumstances, namely that he had been living openly and respectably.
|Poland v Osinski
|Issue: Whether O’s extradition was barred by the presence of other outstanding warrants and systematic overcrowding and poor conditions in Polish prisons
|Kuchta v District Court of Czestochowa (Poland)
|Issue: Whether an EAW was defective as not conforming to the Council Framework Decision 2002; and whether these defects rendered the Warrant unenforceable under Art 8(1).
|Norris v USA
|Issue: Whether a person resisting extradition on Art 8 grounds is required to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.
|Kurucz v District Court in Mlada Boleslav (Czech Republic)
|Issue: Whether the alleged professional negligence of K’s representatives rendered the EAW defective; whether extradition was barred due to the passage of time or extraneous circumstances.
|Mihociu v Central Court of the District of Pest (Hungary)
|Issue: Whether it would be oppressive under s14 to extradite M to Hungary having regard to the passage of time and the impression given by M’s deportation from Hungary that he would no longer be pursued by the Hungarian authorities; and whether the Hungarian authorities acted in bad faith.
|Sinani v Norway
|Issue: Whether the absence of the list of illegal narcotics within the relevant provision invalidated the EAW under s137(2)(c).
|Radziszewski v Circuit Court In Olsztyn
|Issue: Whether R’s extradition was incompatible with an assurance given by a police officer that R wold not have to serve any further time in custody; whether extradition would endanger R’s safety while in custody or at liberty.
|Mighall v Audencia Provincial Da Palma De Mallorca Seccion Segunda (Spain)
|Issue: Whether an EAW must be issued for either the purpose of prosecution or for executing a custodial sentence order; whether a “hybrid” warrant is invalid.
|Usti Nad Labem Regional Court (Czech Republic) v Janiga
|Issue: Whether the date for ascertaining J’s status as an accused or convicted person was at the time of the extradition hearing or at the time of the issue of the EAW; and whether the extradition proceedings should have been adjourned to allow the Czech Republic to seek relevant evidence.
|Kotwa v District Court of Debica In Poland
|Issue: Whether K’s extradition was barred by the risk that, if extradited to Poland, he would be punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race.
|Lodhi v Secretary of State for the Home Department
|Issue: Whether L would be prejudiced in his trial or sentencing in the UAE because he was a national of Pakistan; or whether his extradition would be unjust or oppressive by reason of the passage of time, or because the accusation was not made in good faith.
|A v Republic of Croatia
|Issue: Whether extradition would contravene A’s Art 8 rights by rendering him unavailable to assist in caring for his son; and would be disproportionate in light of A’s family situation.
|Pisarek v Regional Court In Elblag 11 (Poland)
|Issue: Whether P’s extradition was unlawful due to insufficient legal representation at the extradition hearing and/or by reason of the overcrowded conditions in Polish prisons; whether the EAW was unlawful by not providing sufficient particulars and/or not being provided to P as soon as practicable after his arrest.
|Rytmetis v Prosecutor General’s Office Of The Republic Of Lithuania (Judicial Authority in a Category 1 Territory)
|Issue: Whether the EAW was sufficiently clear as to satisfy the requirements of s2(2)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003; whether extradition would put R at risk of violence or a denial of justice in Lithuania; and whether new evidence could be admitted at the late stage of the appeal.
|Gherhardt v The Lord Advocate
|Issue: Whether G’s actions in entering and refusing to leave a property could constitute a crime under Scottish law; and whether G had “deliberately absented himself from his trial” when he had left Romania in the course of the criminal proceedings.
|Okruch v Circuit Court In Rzeszow, Poland
|Issue: Whether extradition would be oppressive due to O’s mental health issues, including risk of suicide; or would disproportionately interfere with his family life.
|R (Prosser) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
|Issue: Whether extradition would exacerbate P’s physical and psychiatric illnesses and thereby be unjust and oppressive; and whether it would disproportionately interfere with P’s private and family life.
|Engler v Her Majesty’s Advocate
|Issue: Whether extradition would violate E’s Art 3 rights due to the alleged systematic overcrowding and poor conditions in Polish prisons.
|Kropiwnicky v Her Majesty’s Advocate
|Issue: Whether extradition would violate K’s Art 3 rights due to the alleged systematic overcrowding and associated poor conditions in Polish prisons.
|Stapleton v Ireland
|Issue: Whether S’s extradition would violate his Art 6 rights to a fair trial within a reasonable time.
|R (Berners) v Council of the Criminal Matters Court (Riga, Latvia)
|Issue: Whether B would suffer ill-treatment or unsatisfactory conditions in Latvia, contrary to Art 3; whether the Judge’s failure to consider B’s written arguments caused material procedural unfairness.
|R (Dikmonas) v Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania
|Issue: Whether D’s extradition was barred because he did not, and would not, receive a fair trial in Lithuania due to police corruption and specific issues relating to the evidence; and because he had a related application pending before the ECtHR.
|R (Roszas) v Baranya County Court Hungary
|Issue: Whether the District Judge was correct in refusing any further adjournments in R’s case.
|Khan v USA
|Issue: Whether an extradition request that was predicated upon the misconduct of foreign police officers acting in the UK should be stayed; whether the alleged abuse of process gave rise only to a residual jurisdiction; whether the conduct of US officials amounted to an abuse of process; whether the Government of the USA should be required to provide further disclosure; whether extradition would expose K to trial in an inappropriate forum; and whether the likely sentence would breach the K’s Art 3 Convention rights.
|Ruzicka v District Court of Nitra, Slovakia
|Issue: What was the correct categorisation of the proceedings against R in Slovakia; and whether an accusation or conviction warrant should have been issued.
|R (Dos Santos) v Judge Margarida Isabel Pereira De Almeida of the Cascais Court 2nd Criminal Chamber, Portugal
|Issue: Whether DS ought to be extradited from the UK to Portugal while his asylum claim from Angola was pending.
|R (Tous) v District Court In Nymburk – Czech Republic
|Issue: Whether there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that T, who was convicted and sentenced in absentia in the Czech Republic, would be entitled to a retrial upon return.
|Asliturk v HMP Wandsworth (“Asliturk No 1”)
|Issue: Whether A’s successive remands in custody were lawful and whether bail should have been granted.
|R (Pasquetti) v Westminster Magistrates Court
|Issue: Whether the decision to extradite P was unreasonable because it was made without the full facts and in the P’s absence; and whether the Judge ought to have taken steps to ensure P’s legal representation.
|Bendik v Judicial Authority of Slovakia
|Issue: Whether the Judicial Authority in Slovakia had acted in bad faith; whether B was in the position of a refugee; whether B’s extradition was barred by the passage of time; whether B’s extradition was barred by the risk of ill-treatment in Slovakia due to his Roma origin
|Herdman & Ors v City of Westminster Magistrates Court
|Issue: Whether the Judge’s refusal to adjourn the extradition hearing prevented the appellants from advancing a proper defence; whether the Judge erred in finding that the appellants were accused persons rather than suspects; and whether the Judge erred in finding that the appellants’ extradition to Greece was compatible with their Art 3, 5 and 6 rights.
|Rot v District Court of Lublin, Poland
|Issue: Whether the District Judge had incorrectly assessed the facts relating to R’s suicide risk and risk of ill-treatment in Poland.
|Harazin v HM Advocate
|Issue: Whether the EAW contained all of the relevant information, including a reference to all warrants and judicial proceedings and the identification of extradition offences.
|Czekala v District Court In Bydgoszcz, Poland
|Issue: Whether C had “deliberately absented” himself from his trial where he had not informed the Polish authorities of his change of address and therefore did not receive the summons.
|Ahmad et al v UK
|Issue: Whether there was a real risk that some or all of the applicants would (i) be designated as enemy combatants and thereby made subject to the death penalty; (ii) be subjected to extraordinary rendition, “special administrative measures”, or coercive plea bargaining; (iii) be detained in a “supermax” prison, sentenced to life imprisonment without parole and/or extremely long sentences of determinate length; (iv) have evidence obtained by the ill-treatment of third parties used in their trials; (v) be subject to jury prejudice based on the extensive publicity given to the US Government’s counter-terrorism efforts or the fourth applicant’s identification as an international terrorist; (vi) whether there would be a disproportionate interference with the fourth applicant’s private and family life; and (vii) whether the Director of Public Prosecution had failed to consider whether to prosecute the third applicant in the UK.
|Klimas v Prosecutor General’s Office of Lithuania
|Issue: Whether K’s extradition to Lithuania would put the UK in breach of its obligations under Art 3 of the ECHR due to allegedly poor prison conditions.
|Poland v Machon
|Issue: "Whether extradition would breach M’s Art 3 rights, having regard to the state of prisons in Poland. "
|Sorokins v Kraslava Regional Court of First Instance (Latvia)
|Issue: Whether S would face a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment if he was imprisoned in Latvia.
|Asliturk (aka Coste) v The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (“Asliturk No 2”)
|Issue: Whether A should have been discharged under s75(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 where his extradition hearing had begun late, but he had not applied to be discharged.
|Michalak v The Circuit Court, Second Criminal Division in Olsztyn (Poland)
|Issue: Whether the inclusion of erroneous additional information in an EAW invalidated the warrant for the purposes of Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003.
|Regional Court in Konin, Poland v Pawel Walerianczyk
|Issue: Whether service of a draft notice of appeal, followed by the filing in the Administrative Court Office of a notice of appeal in the same form, properly constitutes “notice of appeal” for the purposes of s26 and s28 of the Extradition Act 2003.
|Cichowska v Circuit Court in Poznan, Poland
|Issue: Whether C’s extradition would breach Art 8 of the ECHR in light of its effect on C’s young son.
|Kowalski v District Court in Krakow, Poland
|Issue: Whether K had made out a sufficiently compelling case that his extradition would breach Art 8 of the ECHR due to its effect on his fiancée’s mental health and financial situation.
|Puzo v District Court In (Kladno Czech Republic) (“Puzo No 1”)
|Issue: Whether extradition would subject P to discrimination based on his Roma ethnicity; subject him to inhuman or degrading treatment; or run counter to the EU Charter or principles against discrimination.
|Hertel v Government of Canada
|Issue: "Whether H’s conduct amounted to an extradition offence and whether H’s extradition was barred by reason of the passage of time. "
|Ayaz v Court of Milan
|Issue: Whether A’s extradition to Italy was barred by the rule against double jeopardy as he could or should have been prosecuted in the UK for the conduct set out in the EAW, and whether to prosecute him in Italy would amount to an abuse of process.
|The Criminal Court at the National High Court, 1st Division (a Spanish Judicial Authority) v Murua
|Issue: Whether the description of the conduct alleged in the EAW was a proper, accurate and fair description of the charges and, if not, whether it was therefore invalid.
|Gdansk Regional Court (Polish Judicial Authority) v Ulatowski
|Issue: Whether the withdrawal of funds in excess of an agreed overdraft constitutes theft under UK law and would, therefore, be properly classified as an extradition offence.
|R (Abramowicz) v Regional Court in Bialystok, Poland
|Issue: Whether exceptional circumstances were present that would preclude the Polish authorities’ ability to protect A in a Polish prison.
|Stepkowski v Regional Court of Szczecin
|Issue: Whether extradition would breach S’s Art 3 rights by placing him in danger in Poland; or whether extradition would breach S’s Art 8 rights by causing disproportionate disruption to his family and private life.
|Parasiliti Mollica v Prosecutor General (Italy)
|Issue: Whether the EAW was valid despite the omission of a statement that P was “unlawfully at large”; and whether P’s extradition was barred by the passage of time.
|Wozniuk v Regional Court In Bialystok
|Issue: Whether an EAW failed to provide the required “particulars of conviction” where it lacked the date of conviction.
|Office of the Prosecutor General of Turin v Franco Barone
|Issue: Whether the Italian Judicial Authority’s failure to address the known defects in B’s in absentia conviction rendered its extradition request an abuse of process.
|Puzo v District Court in Kladno (Czech Republic) (“Puzo No 2”)
|Issue: Whether the EAW was invalid because P was not a “convicted person”; and whether P had been convicted of an extradition offence.
|Salazar-Duarte v The Government of the USA
|Issue: Whether the Court had the jurisdiction to hear the appeal or judicial review due to various technicalities having been observed.
|Kerry Shanks or Howes v HM Advocate
|Issue: Whether it was unjust or oppressive to extradite H in light of her mental condition.
|Jansons v Latvia
|Issue: Whether extradition was oppressive under s25 of the Extradition Act 2003 where there was a substantial risk that J would commit suicide if extraditd to Latvia.
|Tabaczynski v Regional Court of Bydgoszcz III Penal Division
|Issue: Whether extradition would breach T’s rights under Art 3 ECHR in light of T’s submissions that there were substantial grounds for fearing a real risk of ill treatment and that his life would be in danger at the hands of a criminal gang who had forced him to commit the extradition offences.
|Davied Daniel Fox v The Public Prosecutor’s Office, Landshut, Germany
|Issue: Whether allegations in a European Arrest Warrant of international tax evasion established the element of dishonesty which would be required for tax evasion offences in the United Kingdom, as to amount to extradition offences satisfying the principle of dual criminality.
|S v The Court of Bologna (An Italian Judicial Authority)
|Issue: Whether S’s suicide risk was such that any order for extradition and the subsequent act of extradition would be incompatible with S’s Convention rights.
|Patrick David Reece-Edwards v District Court, Suwalki, Poland
|Issue: Whether the appellant’s physical and mental condition was such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him.
|Howes v HM Advocate (No 2)
|Issue: "Whether B should be discharged from the proceedings due to her mental and physical health issues. "