2007

Cases Reported

Norris v The Government of the USA and others	1
Issue: Whether price-fixing at the relevant time was an extradition offence in the UK and whether N’s extradition to the UK was unjust or oppressive by reason of the passage of time and/or incompatible with the ECHR.

Falanga v Office of the State Prosecutor, Court of Navara, Italy	29
Issue: Whether F’s extradition was barred by the fact of trial in absentia, the passage of time or his human rights.

Michal Srama v District Court of Bydgoszsz	33
Issue: Whether the district judge had misunderstood for which offence the Polish Judicial Authority sought S’s extradition, and the consequences of that misunderstanding.

Senkus v District Court of Kaunas, Lithuania	36
Issue: Whether, by reason of the passage of time, it would be oppressive and unjust to extradite S to Lithuania.

Nigel Richard Barnard v (1) Commonwealth of Australia; and (2) Secretary of State for the Home Department	39
Issue: Whether the extradition request was invalidated by inaccuracies in the warrants issued for B’s arrest.

Harkins v Secretary of State for the Home Department	41
Issue: Whether the evidence against H was insufficient to justify committal, whether the evidence obtained by the Prosecution in the USA was an abuse of process, whether H’s extradition was oppressive by reason of the passage of time and whether the USA’s undertaking in relation to the death penalty was adequate.

Selami Cokaj (aka Valton Gashi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Government of Albania	51
Issue: Whether the specialty principle would be breached by extraditing C to Albania where a merged sentence of 20 years had been imposed for murder and armed robbery, but where C’s extradition had been ordered only in respect of the conviction for murder.

R (Raissi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department	58
Issue: Whether the Home Secretary’s scheme for making ex gratia payments to those wrongly detained applied to persons detained in connection with extradition proceedings; if so, whether the claimant had been “completely exonerated” for the purposes of the scheme, or the Home Secretary was unreasonable in not finding the case to be wholly exceptional.

Dabas v The High Court Of Justice, Madrid, Spain	69
Issue: Whether a separate certificate was required in addition to the European Arrest Warrant to certify that the conduct fell within the European Framework list; whether the requirement of double criminality was satisfied in this case; and whether the EAW had to set out the text of the relevant law of the requesting judicial authority.

Cuneyit Akaroglu v Government of Romania	83
Issue: (i) Whether A was sought as an accused or convicted person and (ii) whether the Secretary of State’s decision to certify under s70 of the 2003 Act was challengeable by appeal or judicial review.

Vincent Brown and others v (1) Governor of HMP Belmarsh, (2) Secretary of State for the Home Department, (3) The Republic of Rwanda	88
Issue: Whether the power conferred by s194(4)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003 permits the Secretary of State to extend the required period under s74(11)(a) from 45 days to 95 days.

Da An Chen v Government of Romania and Secretary of State for the Home Department; Mitoi (No 2) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Government of Romania	92
Issue: What is the scope of any right of appeal or review following remittal by the High Court of a question under s104(1)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003?

Hashmi v The Government of the USA	102
Issue: Whether the contents of the warrants satisfied the Extradition Act 2003; whether the USA was claiming exorbitant jurisdiction; whether extradition of the appellant breached Art 8 ECHR; and whether the conduct was properly described in the request.

Anthony Crean v The Government of Ireland	109
Issue: Whether the EAW was sufficiently particularised to meet the requirements of s2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003; whether C’s extradition would be unjust or oppressive due to the passage of time since the offences occurred and whether his extradition would be incompatible with his rights under Art 8 ECHR.

The District Court of Vilnius City v Barcys	112
Issue: Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal where notice has been given outside the time-limits of the Extradition Act 2003.

Gary McKinnon v (1) Government of the USA and (2) Secretary of State for the Home Department	117
Issue: Whether M’s extradition to the USA for trial on charges of having “hacked” into US government computers and networks was barred by extraneous considerations, passage of time and/or human rights and/or whether the proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of process because of either deliberate delay on the part of the US authorities or the plea bargaining history.

Petras Montvydas v District Court of Klaffadorys	128
Issue: Whether M had been informed of the hearing at which his conditional release from prison was revoked and if not, whether it amounted to a flagrant breach of M’s human rights.

R (Niziol) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court; Niziol v District Law Court in Tarnobrzeg, Poland	133
Issue: Whether the District Judge had been entitled to conclude that N’s physical and/or mental health was not such as to make his return oppressive.

Darius Skruodys v Siauliai City District Court, Lithuania	135
Issue: Whether the Court had power to allow a person to return voluntarily to the requesting state using his own international travel document.

Governor of HMP Wandsworth v Antanas Kinderis; Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania and Crown Prosecution Service, Cambridgeshire	136
Issue: Whether, when the requested person consents to his extradition, the duty to deliver him for extradition took priority over any duty to deliver him for trial in domestic criminal proceedings.

Ceausescu v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others	146
Issue: Whether C could raise Art 6 ECHR in an appeal against the decision of the Secretary of State; whether the fact that C was convicted in his absence in Romania violated Art 6 given that he could request a re-trial.

Hilali v Governor of HMP Whitemoor and Central Court of Committal Proceedings No 5, The High Court, Madrid and Secretary of State for the Home Department (Intervener)	149
Issue: Whether habeas corpus is available when the statutory extradition process has been completed and, if so, whether it should be issued on the facts.

Tatjana Sidlauskaite v The Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania	160
Issue: Whether a European Arrest Warrant provided sufficient particulars of the alleged conduct and whether the requirement of “double criminality” in s64(3)(c) Extradition Act 2003 was met.

Toafike Chababe v Bonn Public Prosecutor’s Office	162
Issue: Whether C’s extradition to Germany for an offence of attempted rape in 1989 was barred by reason of the passage of time.

Mariusz Prus v District Court of Bialystok	165
Issue: Whether it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite P by reason of the passage of time; whether P had deliberately absented himself from his trial and whether his extradition would violate his rights under Art 8 ECHR.

R (Wellington) v Secretary of State for the Home Department	168
Issue: Whether extraditing a person to a state where, if convicted, they would be mandatorily sentenced to life imprisonment, constituted a breach of Art 3 ECHR, and thus operated as a bar to their extradition.

Niziol v District Law Court in Tarnobrzeg, Poland	181
Issue: Whether the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) has jurisdiction to consider an application to delay a person’s extradition due to their ill-health.

In the matter of Zygmund Adam Niziol	183
Issue: Whether N was entitled to the writ of habeas corpus on the grounds of his deteriorating mental state.

La Torre v Republic of Italy	184
Issue: Whether LT’s extradition should have been refused on the grounds that it would be unjust or oppressive to return him due to the passage of time, that return would breach his human rights and/or because his physical or mental condition made his return oppressive.

Iqtidar Mahmood Dara v Public Prosecutors Office at the Regional Court of Marburg, Germany	195
Issue: Whether, in an extradition request from Germany alleging the obtaining of components for making nuclear weapons in Pakistan, the conduct was sufficiently particularised and whether the conduct amount to an extradition offence.

Nisbet v (1) Secretary of State for the Home Department and (2) Government of Canada	198
Issue: Whether it was wrong to appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision in respect of alleged human rights bars, and whether N’s extradition to Canada was barred by ill-health, by a disproportionate and unjustified interference with his right to private and family life under Art 8 ECHR and/or by the risk of a flagrant denial of a fair trial in Canada in breach of Art 6 ECHR.

Osunta v Public Prosecutor’s Office in Dusseldorf	200
Issue: Whether geographical excision from the European Arrest Warrant was permissible in order that the conduct should constitute an extradition offence.

Tomasz Piotrowski v District Court of Slupsk, Poland	204
Issue: Whether it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite P by reason of the passage of time.

Rafaelle Caldarelli v The Court of Naples	208
Issue: Whether a European Arrest Warrant was rightly characterised as an accusation warrant when the arrestee had been convicted in his absence but proceedings had not been finalised; whether there was bad faith; and whether the EAW was unlawful in light of the dates of the conduct alleged.

Mendy v Crown Prosecution Service	219
Issue: Whether the High Court had the power to extend time for filing and/or serving the notice of appeal in a statutory appeal under the Extradition Act 2003.

Mitchell v High Court of Boulogne sur mer	222
Issue: Whether M’s extradition to France was barred because no part of the conduct took place in France, because of double jeopardy or because it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite M by reason of the passage of time.

Lopetas v Minister of Justice for Lithuania	227
Issue: Whether, due to procedural irregularities in the certification of a European Arrest Warrant in the extradition proceedings, and the subsequent detention of the requested person, the proceedings constituted an abuse of process.

Knowles v Government of the USA & Superintendent of Prisons of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas	230
Issue: Whether the Bahamian Court of Appeal had been able to hear an appeal from the grant of habeas corpus in extradition proceedings; whether K’s extradition from the Bahamas to the USA on drug-trafficking charges was barred by reason of unfair trial, abuse of process, the request not being made in good faith, lapse of time and/or a failure of disclosure by the US Government.

Gibson v Government of the USA	239
Issue: Whether G’s case was distinguishable from that of his co-accused (Cartwright v Superintendent of Her Majesty’s Prison [2004] 1 WLR 902); if not, whether the decision of the majority of the Privy Council in Cartwright was correct; and, if not, whether it should nevertheless be followed.

Central Examining Court of the National Court of Madrid v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court (Defendant) and Malkit Singh (first interested party)	245
Issue: Whether the CPS providing simple drafting assistance to an Issuing Judicial Authority is, in law, capable of constituting an abuse of process.

Mariusz Artur Wiejak v Olsztyn Circuit Court of Poland	252
Issue: Whether W’s extradition was barred by reason of the passage of time.

Government of Croatia v Milan Spanovic	255
Issue: Whether the district judge had been entitled to hold that S’s extradition to Croatia on war crimes charges was barred due to the passage of time.

Keith Stuart Ashley Wood v (i) City of Westminster Magistrates Court, (ii) Secretary of State for the Home Department and (iii) Government of the USA	260
Issue: Whether the time for extradition could be extended where the High Court had declined to certify a point of law of general public importance.

Edwards v Government of the USA	262
Issue: Whether, in deciding whether the dual criminality requirement is met in a case under Part 2 Extradition Act 2003, the domestic court is limited to what is set out in the foreign indictment, together with any document which it incorporates by express reference, or whether it may take into account any narrative or explanation tendered by the requesting state.

Konrad Pilecki v The Circuit Court of Legnica, Poland	266
Issue: Whether a European Arrest Warrant which provided an aggregate sentence in respect of multiple offences failed to comply with s2(6)(e) Extradition Act 2003, and whether the district judge had been entitled to find that P had deliberately absented himself from his trial in Poland.

Goodyer and Gomes v Government of Trinidad and Tobago	271
Issue: Whether it would be unjust or oppressive by reason of the passage of time to return either appellant to Trinidad for trial and whether, if returned, the prison conditions would be such as to make their extradition incompatible with Art 3 ECHR.

Niescier v Circuit Court of Legnica III, Criminal Department, Poland	276
Issue: Whether N’s extradition to serve a prison sentence was as a result of being resentenced for the same offence, in breach of Art 7 ECHR, and whether his extradition was, therefore, barred as being incompatible with his human rights.

Ogonowski v District Court of Bialystok, Poland	278
Issue: Whether the District Judge had been entitled to find that O would not be at risk of ill-treatment by Polish police on return such as would breach Art 3 ECHR.

Roberts and Others v Minister of Foreign Affairs, Superintendent of Prisons (Fox Hill), Attorney General of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas	281
Issue: Whether extradition arrangements between the Bahamas and the USA were unconstitutional, null and void.

Taylor v Government of the USA	286
Issue: Whether T’s extradition to the USA would be oppressive, either by virtue of civil proceedings in the US founded on the same facts having resulted in a judgment against T, thereby prejudicing him in his criminal trial, or because of his chronic heart condition, and whether return would violate Arts 3 or 8 ECHR due to his health condition.

Tomasz Szklanny v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Government of Poland	291
Issue: Whether s35(4(b) Extradition Act 2003 allowed an extension of time to be granted for extraditing the requested person only where the need for the extension arose due to circumstances beyond the control of the member states concerned.

Haynes v The Court of Magistrates, Malta	294
Issue: Whether a European Arrest Warrant met the requirements of ss2 and 64 Extradition Act 2003.

Gronostajski v Government of Poland	299
Issue: Whether, when non-production or late production of a prisoner causes an extradition hearing to be put off until the following day, delay to the hearing can be said to have a “reasonable cause” for the purposes of s8(7) Extradition Act 2003.

Zielinski v District Court Legnica (a Polish Judicial Authority)	302
Issue: Whether the district judge had been entitled to find that Z’s extradition was not barred by the passage of time.