Extradition - 2000

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 13 cases, and was prepared on 13 May 2012.

In Re Pinochet Ugarte
7 Jan 2000 QBD	Criminal Practice, Extradition, Information	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	In extradition proceedings which had been before the House of Lords it might be right for the papers to be served on interested third parties and human rights organisations. At that level, the matter discussed were primarily legal. However when the matter was at divisional level or below there had to be overwhelming reason for such bodies to be party to what were essentially criminal proceedings. No such reason was shown here, and no papers would be served.

Peci -v- Governor of Brixton Prison and Another
12 Jan 2000 QBD	Extradition
	Where a country applies to another for the extradition of a prisoner, and gives unequivocal guarantees that the prisoner will receive a fair trial, the good faith of the requesting state must be presumed. The prisoner having been convicted in his absence, the Swiss government undertook that if he applied within the 20 day time limit upon his return his conviction would be set aside, and he would be given a fair trial.

Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Kingdom of Belgium -v- Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Amnesty International Limited and Five Other Applicants [2000] EWHC Admin 293
15 Feb 2000 Admn	Extradition
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Secretary of State for Home Department, ex parte Christian Norgren [2000] EWHC QB 143; [2000] EWHC Admin 296
18 Feb 2000 Admn Lord Bingham CJ	Financial Services, Extradition, Crime	Casemap 1 Citers
	The extradition of the defendant was requested by the US for breaches of insider dealing legislation. He claimed the issue of the order by the Home Secretary claiming it was not an extradition crime since at the time, the English equivalent offence related only to dealing on the Stock Exchange in London. Held: The decision in issue would be that of the magistrate, not the Home Secretary. The notice was correct on its face and should stand.
	Extradition Act 1989 - Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Government of Bulgaria and Governor of HMP Brixton ex parte Atanas Momtchilov Ratchev [2000] EWHC Admin 343
17 May 2000 Admn	Extradition
	Link[s] omitted

Urru -v- Governor of HM Prison, Brixton Unreported, 22 May 2000; CO/4009/99
22 May 2000 Lord Bingham of Cornhill CJ	Extradition	Casemap 1 Citers
	The prisoner resisted his extradition to Italy. The court examined documentation received from Italy: "That language may indicate that the applicant is already regarded as unlawfully at large and therefore liable to arrest which, if so, would of course support the government's case. But it may, as it seems to me, be authority to arrest him when he has been found and when he has been handed a copy of the order, which would suggest that he was not unlawfully at large until those steps had been accomplished. In the absence of expert evidence of Italian law I do not know how the magistrate could, or how we can, choose between those hypotheses."

Regina -v- Brixton Prison and Another, Ex Parte Burke [2000] UKHL 35; 3 All ER 481; [2000] 3 WLR 33
16 Jun 2000 HL	Criminal Sentencing, Extradition
	It was proper to extradite to the US, a person who had been convicted and had served all the part of his sentence which he would serve in prison, but where some proportion of his sentence which would be served under a supervised release scheme remained to be served. There was no limitation to returning only after unlawful escapes from custody, but rather the provision set a minimum. The period of supervision was part of the original sentence.
	Extradition Act 1989 Sch 1 para 5(1)(b)
	Link[s] omitted

Migliorelli -v- Government of Italy [2000] EWHC 558 (QB)
28 Jul 2000 QBD Judge LJ, Morison J	Extradition	Casemap 1 Citers
	The Government of Italy sought the return of a fugitive who had been tried and convicted in his absence. The issue was whether the warrant should have been issued against the fugitive as a convicted person and not, as it had, as an accused person. Held. The warrant had been correctly issued since the trial process had not yet come to an end. Judge LJ said that the process in Italy was incomplete not only in relation to sentence but also conviction.
	Extradition Act 1989
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Proulx -v- Governor of H M Prison Brixton; Government of Canada; Bow Street Magistrates' Court and Crown Prosecution Service ex Aprte Armand Michael Proulx [2000] EWHC Admin 381
28 Jul 2000 Admn	Extradition
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- B (Extradition: Abuse of Process)
17 Oct 2000 CACD	Extradition, Human Rights, Judicial Review
	An allegation of abuse of process did not constitute a special category of extradition to allow a judicial review of a decision not to grant a stay of those extradition proceedings. Article 8 could not be used to restrict such decisions. In any event the issues relating to the way in which the applicant had come to be brought within the jurisdiction, and the non-disclosure he alleged had been fully argued and considered on appeal already and rejected.

Lees -v- Government of Norway
1 Nov 2000 QBD	Extradition
	When considering an extradition application, a sentence which had been suspended in its operation was to be considered still as imprisonment in the context of asking what was the potential 'punishment awarded' The provisions of the Convention must be looked at in a broad and sensible way.
	European Convention on Extradition 1991 Cmd 1762 Art 2.1 - European Convention on Extradition 1991 Cmd 1762 Art 2.1

Al-Fawwaz -v- Governor of Brixton Prison [2000] EWHC Admin 424
20 Dec 2000 QBD	Extradition, International	Casemap 1 Citers
	To found an extradition application, it was not sufficient that the crime should be listed as such by English law, but it was also necessary that it should be a crime of appropriate standing in the country to which extradition was sought. The crime also had to have been committed within the territory of the nation which sought extradition. Here, the USA sought extradition in respect to of offences which had not been committed in the USA, of people who had had no connection with the USA.
	Extradition Act 1989 1(3)
	Link[s] omitted

Nadeem Akhtar Saifi -v- Governor of Brixton Prison and Union of India [2000] EWHC Admin 437; [2000] EWHC QB 33; [2001] 1 WLR 1134
21 Dec 2000 Admn Rose LJ and Newman J	Extradition, Human Rights	Casemap 1 Citers
	The applicant for habeas corpus resisted extradition to India on the ground, among others, that the prosecution relied on a statement obtained by torture and since retracted. Held: the court accepted the magistrate's judgment that fairness did not call for exclusion of the statement, but was clear that the common law and domestic statute law (s78 of the 1984 Act) gave effect to the intent of article 15 of the International Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984. Where evidence was brought in the form of a translation into English, it was not admissible under the Extradition Act unless it was in a language capable of being understood by the witness giving that primary evidence. The witness had given his evidence in Hindi, and it had been translated, as he spoke, into English, and he had then being asked to sign the translation. That statement was not admissible. The actual words used by the witness were no longer available for challenge. The concept of the burden of proof had no application in the circumstances of challenging the effect on fairness of admitting the statement. When a court was asked to determine whether an accusation was in good faith, that question went not to the issue of the extradition proceedings themselves, but as to the accusation by the prosecution witness and the charge.
	Extradition Act 1989 11(3) 27(1) - Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 78 - International Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984 (1990, Cm 1775) 15
	Link[s] omitted