Extradition - 1930- 1959

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 1 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.

Amand -v- Home Secretary and Minister of Defence of Royal Netherlands Government [1943] AC 147; [1942] 2 All ER 381
1943 HL Viscount Simon LC, Wright, Atkin, Thankerton, Porter LL	Extradition, Litigation Practice	Casemap 1 Cites
	The refusal of an application for habeas corpus by a person committed to prison with a view to extradition was a decision in a "criminal cause or matter." Viscount Simon LC said said that the: "distinction between cases of habeas corpus in a criminal matter, and cases when the matter is not criminal goes back very far . . it is the nature and character of the proceeding in which habeas corpus is sought which provide the test . . If the matter is one the direct outcome of which may be trial of the applicant and his possible punishment for an alleged offence by a court claiming jurisdiction to do so, the matter is criminal." Lord Porter said: "This does not mean that the matter, to be criminal, must be criminal throughout. It is enough if the proceeding in respect of which mandamus was asked is criminal, eg, the recovery of a poor rate is not of itself a criminal matter, but its enforcement by magistrates by warrant of distress is, and if a cause be stated by them as to their right to enforce it and that the case is determined by the High Court, no appeal lies . . The proceeding from which the appeal is attempted to be taken must be a step in a criminal proceeding, but it need not of itself of necessity end in a criminal trial or punishment. It is enough if it puts the person brought up before the magistrate in jeopardy of a criminal charge. . ." Lord Wright said: "The principle which I deduce from the authorities I have cited and the other relevant authorities which I have considered, is that if the cause or matter is one which, if carried to its conclusion, might result in the conviction of the person charged and in a sentence of some punishment such as imprisonment or a fine, it is a 'criminal cause or matter. The person charged is thus put in jeopardy. Every order made in such a cause or matter by an English court, is an order in a criminal cause or matter, even though the order, taken by itself, is neutral in character and might equally have been made in a cause or matter which is not criminal. The order may not involve punishment by the law of this country, but if the effect of the order is to subject by means of the operation of English law the persons charged to the criminal jurisdiction of a foreign country, the order is, in the eyes of English law for the purposes being considered, an order in a criminal cause or matter" and ". . the immediate [habeas corpus application] . . was not the cause or matter to which the section refers. The cause or matter in question was the application to the court to exercise its powers under the Allied Forces Act . . to deliver the appellant to the Dutch military authorities. It is in reference to the nature of that proceeding that it must be determined whether there was an order made in a criminal cause or matter."
	Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 31(1)(a)