2012
|
|
Cases Reported |
| Christopher Tappin v The Government of the United States of America | 1 |
| Issue: Whether extradition would be oppressive due to the passage of time; whether the conduct specified in the extradition request satisfied the double criminality rule. | |
| Glen Howell v Deputy Attorney General Court of Appeal of Douai France | 8 |
| Issue: Whether the EAW was issued by a competent judicial authority; whether the EAW was invalid because it did not detail the dates of the alleged offences; whether extradition would amount to a breach of Art 8 of the ECHR. | |
| Viktors Grozovs v Kraslava District Court | 13 |
| Issue: Whether evidence could be admitted on appeal to support an argument that was not raised during the extradition hearing; whether it would be oppressive by reason of the appellant’s physical condition to extradite him to Latvia. | |
| Harkins & Edwards v United Kingdom | 14 |
| Issue: Whether extradition to the USA to face a possible prison sentence of life without parole would breach Art 3 ECHR. | |
| Spitans v Riga Regional Court, Latvia | 42 |
| Issue: Whether a European arrest warrant was sufficiently particularised to provide the necessary implication that the possession of drugs was unlawful. | |
| Sidorowicz v The Circuit Court of Zielona Gora, Poland | 44 |
| Issue: Whether an offence which would not be prosecuted in the UK without a substantial aggravating factor met the test of dual criminality under the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| F-K v Polish Judicial Authority | 51 |
| Issue: Whether a requested person could rely on oppression under s14 of the Extradition Act 2003 as a bar to extradition where she was a fugitive. | |
| Viktors Grozovs v Kraslava District Court | 57 |
| Issue: Whether a requested person’s absence at the time when a suspended sentence was activated permitted him to rely on s20 of the Extradition Act 2003 as a bar to extradition. | |
| Miroslaw Mariusz Kaminski v A Judicial Authority in Poland | 62 |
| Issue: Miroslaw Mariusz Kaminski v A Judicial Authority in Poland | |
| Bulla v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 66 |
| Issue: Whether B had an automatic right to a retrial when being returned to Albania. | |
| R (Vullnet Mucelli) v Secretary of State for the Home Department v Fair Trials International; Hoxhaj and Gjoka v Albania | 68 |
| Issue: Whether the appellants would receive an Art 6 ECHR compliant trial in Albania where they had been tried and convicted in their absence. | |
| Kaliszewicz v Regional Court of Bialystok | 79 |
| Issue: Whether the appellant can rely on new challenges on appeal; whether the risk of violence by non-state actors in prison in Poland breaches Art 3 ECHR. | |
| Kapri v Lord Advocate for an on behalf of the Republic of Albania | 80 |
| Issue: Whether the appellant could rely on new evidence of a general nature not adduced at first instance. | |
| R (Ahmetaj) v Serious Organised Crime Agency | 85 |
| Issue: R (Ahmetaj) v Serious Organised Crime Agency | |
| Radoslaw Mylinski v District Court in Opole, Poland (A Polish Judicial Authority) | 88 |
| Issue: Radoslaw Mylinski v District Court in Opole, Poland (A Polish Judicial Authority) | |
| Peter Taylor v The Public Prosecutor's Office, Berlin, Germany | 89 |
| Issue: Whether the EAW was defective due to non-compliance with s2(4)(c) and s2(4)(d) of the Extradition Act 2003; whether Germany had jurisdiction in relation to an offence committed in the United Kingdom, under s64(4) of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Marcin Plotkowski v Regional Court In Elblag, Poland | 93 |
| Issue: Whether extradition would amount to a breach of Art 8 of the ECHR. | |
| Kamil Bulkowski v Regional Court of Elblag, Poland | 95 |
| Issue: Whether the EAW failed to give adequate particulars of the sentence, as required under s2(6)(e) of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Aldhouse v Royal Government of Thailand, Secretary of State for the Home Department | 97 |
| Issue: Whether failure to serve notice of appeal on the Secretary of State deprived the court of jurisdiction to hear the appeal. | |
| Clark v Government of United States of America | 105 |
| Issue: Whether it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite C due to the passage of time in terms of s82 of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Andrew Neave, Paul O'Connor, Colin Dines, Andrew Dines v Court of Rome, Italy | 109 |
| Issue: Whether the EAWs could be issued prior to the appellants being formally charged; whether the appellants fell within the definition of “accused” persons under s2(3) of the Extradition Act 2003; whether the system of detaining individuals in order to conduct a preliminary investigation in Italy amounted to a breach of Art 5 of the ECHR. | |
| Maciej Maziarski v Lord Advocate | 114 |
| Issue: Whether extradition to Poland to face an aggregate sentence of 3 years and 2 months would be oppressive in light of the appellant’s mental health. | |
| Chrzescijanski v Poland | 122 |
| Issue: Whether a European arrest warrant needs to specify the reason for the activation of a suspended sentence for the purposes of s2 of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| RZ v France | 126 |
| Issue: Whether the making of threatening telephone calls to someone in another country constituted an extradition offence. | |
| Balsevics v Rezekne Court (a Latvian Judicial Authority) | 128 |
| Issue: Whether the appellant’s mental health barred extradition; whether the risk of inter-prisoner violence barred extradition. | |
| Marcinkowski v Polish Judicial Authority | 131 |
| Issue: Whether the particulars of the offence were sufficient to establish an extradition offence; the need for a comparative table of blood and alcohol levels across states. | |
| Jozwiak v The Regional Court of Lodz, Poland | 133 |
| Issue: Whether an extradition hearing was unfair due to interpreting services | |
| Vörös v The District Courts of Sopron, Gyor and Zalaegerszeg, Hungary | 135 |
| Issue: Whether extradition was barred where offences were duplicated in different European arrest warrants. | |
| Tudor v United Arab Emirates | 142 |
| Issue: The requirements of evidence to show a case to answer under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Marceli Krzyzak, Dawid Fugas v Regional Court of Tarnow, Poland, Circuit Court of Katowice, Poland | 146 |
| Issue: Whether extradition would breach Art 3 of the ECHR. | |
| Jaroslaw Kopycki v Provincial Court in Lodz, Poland | 149 |
| Issue: Whether the EAW could be read as a whole when deciding whether the offence alleged was an extradition offence. | |
| G v a Polish Judicial Authority | 154 |
| Issue: Whether, by virtue of being a minor at the time of the alleged offence, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child required details of the suspended sentence to be included in the European arrest warrant. | |
| Lucy Wright (also known as Lucy Robertson) v The Government of Argentina; Lucy Wright (also known as Lucy Robertson) v The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Force, The Director of Public Prosecutions v The Government of Argentina, Secretary of State for the Home Department | 157 |
| Issue: Whether extradition to Argentina and detention in prison would breach the requested person’s Convention rights. | |
| Pieczewski v Judicial Authority in Poland | 164 |
| Issue: Whether an allegation of riding a bicycle while intoxicated satisfied dual criminality. | |
| R (Azim) v Secretary of State for the Home Department | 165 |
| Issue: Whether the Secretary of State had appropriately advised the claimant of his right to appeal the order for extradition to the USA. | |
| Poole v Kranj District Court, Slovenia | 168 |
| Issue: Whether it was appropriate to adjourn an appeal in order to enable the requested person to seek to compromise the European arrest warrant. | |
| Nowicki v Military Court of Gydnia Poland | 171 |
| Issue: Whether N’s extradition was barred where he contended that he had been neither present at trial nor summonsed to appear at his trial in Poland. | |
| Emi Kis v District Court in Sokolov, Czech Republic | 174 |
| Issue: Whether an appellant raised a bar at first instance; whether legal professional privilege had been waived; whether a requested person was present at trial. | |
| Stopyra v The District Court of Wolin (a Polish Judicial Authority) | 177 |
| Issue: Whether the Ministry of Justice ought to be invited to provide evidence and take part in proceedings arising from the delay in granting legal aid in extradition proceedings generally, and the provision of legal aid for reports on the adequacy of health care in the requesting Convention state specifically. | |
| Ionut Tulceanu v Baca Law Court, Romania | 178 |
| Issue: Whether a requested person ought to be allowed an adjournment to provide evidence of judicial corruption in the requesting state. | |
| The Superintendent of Her Majesty’s Foxhill Prison, The Government of the United States of America v Viktor Kozney | 179 |
| Issue: Whether the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal in the Bahamas granting a writ of habeas corpus at common law under the Extradition Act 1994 (Bahamas). | |
| Woldarczyk v Lord Advocate | 190 |
| Issue: Whether extradition would be oppressive due to the passage of time. | |
| The Lord Justice General, Lord Drummond Young, Lord Wheatley | 203 |
| Issue: Whether it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite the appellant due to his medical condition. | |
| Zdinjak v Republic of Croatia | 213 |
| Issue: Whether extradition was barred by the rule against double jeopardy. | |
| Woolley v United Kingdom | 220 |
| Issue: Whether imprisonment in default of payment of a confiscation order would breach specialty and Art 5 ECHR. | |
| Barbar Ahmad and others v UK | 229 |
| Issue: The approach to Art 3 in an extradition situation; whether detention in a ‘supermax’ jail would breach Art 3 ECHR; whether sentences would be grossly disproportionate. | |
| Timothy John Wilby v The Municipal Court Prague Czech Republic; Julian Halliday v The Municipal Court Prague Czech Republic | 272 |
| Issue: Whether the fact that the appellants’ had HIV rendered extradition oppressive under s25 of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Péter Vörös v The District Courts of Sopron, Gyor and Zalaegerszeg, Hungary | 279 |
| Issue: Whether extradition was barred where there were duplicate offences in different European arrest warrants. | |
| Brzeski v Regional Court in Gdansk, Poland | 280 |
| Issue: Whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive due to the passage of time, and the period of time which an appellant may rely on in aid of such an argument. | |
| Eneko Gogeakoetxea Arronategui v 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Sections of the National High Court of Madrid Spain; The 2nd Section of the National High Court of Madrid Spain v Eneko Gogeakoetxea Arronategui (Digest) | 286 |
| Issue: Whether extradition would amount to a breach of Arts 5 and 6 of the ECHR; whether extradition was barred under s17(1) of the Extradition Act 2003; whether the District Judge was correct in making the decision not to extradite based on whether the offence (attempt to assassinate) could be proven in Spain. | |
| Hakkens v District Court of Wroclaw, Poland | 287 |
| Issue: Whether the EAW provided sufficient particulars of the offence; whether it would be oppressive to extradite H due to the passage of time. | |
| Kozlowski v District Court of Torun, Poland | 289 |
| Issue: Whether an adjournment could be granted until the resolution of the requested person’s asylum claim; whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive in terms of s25 of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Holman v Regional Court in Warsaw, Poland | 295 |
| Issue: Whether an extradition request was motivated by extraneous considerations, namely race, so that extradition was barred by s13 of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Erjon Rexha v Office of the Prosecutor attached to the Court in Rome (Digest) | 297 |
| Issue: Whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive due to the passage of time; whether the EAW should inform the appellant of his right to a retrial; whether the principle of res judicata barred the reopening of issues decided earlier in judicial review proceedings; whether extradition would breach Arts 5, 6 and 8 of the ECHR. | |
| Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority | 298 |
| Issue: Whether a public prosecutor fell within the definition of a “judicial authority” under s2(2) of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Lukaszewski, Pomiechowski, Rozanski and R (Halligen) v (1) District Court in Torun, Poland; (2) District Court of Legunica 59-220 Poland; (3) Regional Court 3 Penal Department Poland; (4) Secretary of State for the Home Department | 358 |
| Issue: Whether the decision in Mucelli relating to the appeal provisions of the Extradition Act 2003 should be followed; whether the inflexible time limits for appeals in the Extradition Act 2003 were subject to qualification on human rights grounds. | |
| Gesiewski v District Court in Bialystok, Poland | 371 |
| Issue: Whether buying goods that had been stolen was an extradition offence; whether the proceedings should be adjourned to allow further evidence to be produced. | |
| Lipska v District Court in Gdansk Poland | 373 |
| Issue: Whether the proceedings should be adjourned to await a compromise with the Polish authorities to transfer execution of L’s sentence to the United Kingdom. | |
| Margiela v Circuit Law Court in Swidnica Poland | 376 |
| Issue: Whether hiding a military document belonging to someone else constituted an extradition offence. | |
| Kapri v Lord Advocate for an on behalf of the Republic of Albania (No 2) | 378 |
| Issue: Whether the law in the requesting state guaranteed a retrial or review tantamount to a retrial as required by s85 of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Huczko v Governor HMP Wandsworth (Respondent) and the Regional Court in Slupsk (Interested Party) | 384 |
| Issue: Whether the delay in bringing H to court following his arrest amounted to a breach of s4(3) of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa; PH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa; F-K (FC) v Polish Judicial Authority | 387 |
| Issue: Whether it was necessary to modify the approach of the Supreme Court in Norris in relation to Art 8 of the ECHR; whether the appellants’ extradition would amount to a breach of Art 8 of the ECHR in light of the harm that would be caused to the affected children. | |
| BH and another v The Lord Advocate and another | 421 |
| Issue: Whether it was compatible with the Art 8 ECHR rights of the appellants and their young children to order the appellants’ extradition to the United States of America. | |
| Shawn Eugene Sullivan v Government of the United States of America and Secretary of State for the Home Department | 435 |
| Issue: Whether there was a real risk that the appellant would be subjected to the civil commitment process in Minnesota; whether the civil commitment process amounted to a breach of Art 5 and 6 of the ECHR. | |
| Vladislav Anatolyevich Dudko v The Government of the Russian Federation | 441 |
| Issue: Whether a poorly translated prosecution document in the extradition request sufficiently particularised the conduct alleged to satisfy the requirements of s78(2)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Government of the United Arab Emirates v Amanda Jane Allen | 447 |
| Issue: Whether default on a loan agreement supported by the security of an undated cheque amounted to an extradition offence under s138 of the Extradition Act 2003 | |
| Government of the United Arab Emirates v Sheeraz Amir | 454 |
| Issue: Whether the evidence provided by the UAE in the EAW, in relation to offences of giving cheques in bad faith and fraud, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case under s84 or s86 of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Rutyna v Regional Court in Nowy Sacz Poland | 456 |
| Issue: Whether the appellant was at a high risk of suicide, making it unjust or oppressive to extradite him under s25 of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Patryk Hartung v The Circuit Court In Szczecin, Poland | 460 |
| Issue: Whether extradition would amount to a breach of Art 3 of the ECHR; whether the numerous failings by the appellant’s representatives amounted to an abuse of process. | |
| Stephen Williams and Geoffrey Williams v Public Prosecutor of Lille Court of First Instance, France | 464 |
| Issue: Whether the United Kingdom was the most convenient forum for the prosecution; whether extradition would breach Art 8 of the ECHR. | |
| Tokarski v Circuit Court in Swidnica, Poland | 468 |
| Issue: Whether the conduct amounting to concealment of an ID card of another, specified in the EAW, satisfied the double criminality rule under s65 of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Naidoo v High Court Dublin, Republic of Ireland | 470 |
| Issue: Whether extradition should be barred due to the passage of time under s14 of the Extradition Act 2003; whether extradition would violate the appellant’s rights under Art 8 of the ECHR; whether extradition should be barred under s25 of the Extradition Act 2003 as the appellant posed a high risk of suicide. | |
| Lumenica v Government of Albania; Ragul v Government of Azerbaijan; Ratajczak v Judicial Authority of Poland; Demkowski v Regional Court Law in Czestochowa | 472 |
| Issue: Whether time limits for appeals under ss26(4) and 108(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 could be extended. | |
| R (Edjis Klimeto) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court | 478 |
| Issue: Whether s142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 was applicable to extradition proceedings. | |
| Edgars Veiss v Le Paelite Prosecutor General Office Republic of Latvia | 486 |
| Issue: Whether the offence of driving without a valid licence while under the influence of alcohol satisfied the dual criminality requirement under s64(3) of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Nikitins v Prosecutor General's Office Republic of Latvia | 489 |
| Issue: Whether extradition would amount to a breach of Art 8 of the ECHR. | |
| Malinowski v District Court of Legnica Poland | 491 |
| Issue: Whether the Polish judicial authority was under an obligation to adduce positive evidence that the guarantees under s20 of the Extradition Act 2003 would be provided upon retrial. | |
| Kuznecovas v Prosecutor General Office of the Republic of Lithuania | 492 |
| Issue: Whether the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Lithuania was a judicial authority; whether the appellant was an accused within the meaning of s2(3) of the Extradition Act 2003; whether extradition was barred as a result of the rule against double jeopardy, under s12 of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Hegedus v Csongrad County Court Hungary | 493 |
| Issue: Whether extradition was barred as it would be oppressive due to the passage of time under s14 of the Extradition Act 2003; whether the proceedings should be adjourned as the appellant had an operation scheduled. | |
| Tahir Konuksever v The Government of Turkey | 496 |
| Issue: Whether extradition amounted to a breach of the appellant’s rights under Arts 3 and 6 of the ECHR. | |
| In the Matter of Piotr Strojwas, an Applicant for Bail | 506 |
| Issue: Whether an application for bail could be made to the High Court outside of the procedure laid down in the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Artur Krolik, Sylwester Kazmierczak, Piotr Zwolinski, Tomasz Lachowski, Tomasz Soltan, Daniel Walachowski v Several Judicial Authorities of Poland | 510 |
| Issue: Whether extradition to Poland would breach Art 3 of the ECHR. | |
| Richen Turner v Government of the USA | 515 |
| Issue: Whether extradition was barred, by reason of the requested person’s ill health, such that it would be oppressive to extradite the appellant in terms of s91(3) of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
| Federal Public Prosecutor, Brussels, Belgium v Warren Bartlett | 524 |
| Issue: Whether the course of conduct employed by the Belgian Public Prosecutor amounted to an abuse of process. | |
| JP v The District Court at Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic; JE-H & IE-H v Government of Australia | 530 |
| Issue: Whether extradition would amount to a disproportionate interference with the rights of the children under Art 8 of the ECHR. | |
| Larvin v Juzgado De Instruccion No 4 Court of Fuengirola Malaga, Spain | 535 |
| Issue: Whether the EAW was invalid for failing to satisfy the requirements under s2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003. | |
View as
Sort by
Display
per page
