Source: https://southsideonlinepublishing.com/en/2009-5
Timestamp: 2019-12-07 09:46:52
Document Index: 606746580

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 3', 'Art 8', 'Art 3', 'Art 8', 'Art 3', 'Art 3', 'Art 8', 'Art 8', 'Art 3', 'Art 8', 'Arts 3', 'Art 8', 'Art 8', 'Art 8']

Thompson v Public Prosecutor of Boulogne sur mer 1
Issue: Whether a European Arrest Warrant was an accusation or conviction warrant; whether it was invalid for want of a clear statement that T was wanted for prosecution and lack of particulars as to the maximum sentence for each offence mentioned.
Adamiak v Krosno Regional Court, Poland 7
Issue: Whether A’s extradition to Poland would be incompatible with Art 3 ECHR on the grounds that he would be unsafe in a Polish prison.
RW v Provincial Court of Katowice, Poland 8
Issue: Whether extradition would breach Art 8 ECHR.
Lacorre v High Instance Court of Paris 11
Issue: Whether a European Arrest Warrant contained sufficient particulars to satisfy s2(4)(c) Extradition Act 2003; whether the offences in the EAW were both “extradition offences”.
Seminara v Public Prosecutor’s Office of Lecce, Italy 16
Issue: Whether S’s extradition was barred by reason of the passage of time having rendered extradition oppressive.
Ignaoua, Khemiri and Chehidi v (1) Court of Milan, Italy (an Italian Judicial Authority); (2) Serious and Organised Crime Agency; (3) Secretary of State for the Home Department 19
Issue: Whether the High Court may entertain an application for habeas corpus arising from the same ground as that decided by the District Judge and the High Court on appeal when fresh evidence was put forward; if so, whether the material qualified as fresh evidence; if so, whether the fresh evidence demonstrated that the Divisional Court’s decision was fundamentally erroneous; and whether it made any difference that I had an undetermined asylum claim in UK and that K had refugee status.
Deya v Government of Kenya 28
Issue: Whether D’s extradition would be incompatible with his human rights, particularly in light of prison conditions in Kenya; whether D would be punished for his political conditions on return to Kenya, barring his extradition by reason of extraneous considerations (s81 Extradition Act 2003).
Rana v Public Prosecutor of the Graz Regional Criminal Court, Austria 35
Issue: Whether a European Arrest Warrant contained sufficient particulars to satisfy s2(4)(c) Extradition Act 2003; whether the offences in the EAW were “extradition offences”.
District Court of Michalovce, Slovakia v Badi 40
Issue: Whether, if B were to be extradited, he would be entitled to a retrial as required by s20(5) Extradition Act 2003.
Mohammed v Public Prosecutor of Paris, France 41
Issue: Whether a European Arrest Warrant contained sufficient particulars to satisfy the requirements of s2(4)(c) Extradition Act 2003.
R (Hilali) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court; Crown Prosecution Service and Secretary of State for the Home Department (Intervener) 43
Issue: Whether courts in the UK can order the authorities of a requesting state to which a person has been extradited to return the person to the UK on the grounds that he is being, or is likely to be, dealt with in breach of the specialty rule in the requesting state.
Murtati v Government of the Republic of Albania 52
Issue: Whether, having been convicted in his absence, M would be entitled to a re-trial upon return to Albania; whether it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him by reason of the passage of time.
Kwietniewski v Circuit Court in Tarnobrzeg, Poland 55
Issue: Whether the risk of K committing suicide if returned to Poland rendered his extradition incompatible with Art 3 ECHR.
Louca v Office of Public Prosecutor in Bielefeld, Germany and Serious Organised Crime Agency; Kaba v Creteil Court of First Instance, France 57
Issue: Whether the reference in s2(3)(b) Extradition Act 2003 to “any other warrant” referred to any other domestic warrant or any other European Arrest Warrant; whether an EAW contained sufficient particulars to comply with of s2(4)(c) of the 2003 Act; whether offences were extradition offences; whether extradition was barred by the passage of time; whether it was incompatible with Art 8 ECHR.
Mirga v Regional Court in Krakow, Poland 67
Issue: Whether M’s extradition was barred by reason of the passage of time having rendered it unjust and/or oppressive.
McKenzie v Examining Court No 9 Palma de Mallorca (A Spanish Judicial Authority) 69
Issue: Whether M’s extradition would be unjust and/or oppressive by reason of the passage of time; whether it was barred by extraneous considerations; whether it was incompatible with his rights under Art 3 ECHR.
Chyba v District Court in Strakonice, Czech Republic 74
Issue: Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a District Judge’s decision under s55(6) Extradition Act 2003 to consent to an extradited person being dealt with in the requested state for another offence; whether the prison conditions in the Czech Republic to which C was subjected breached Art 3 ECHR.
R (Wellington) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 77
Dirsyte v Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania 94
Issue: Whether D’s extradition was incompatible with Art 8 ECHR.
Campbell v HM Advocate 96
Issue: Whether C had deliberately absented himself from trial in France in light of legal advice; whether extradition was barred as being oppressive or unjust by reason of the passage of time.
Trajer v The Lord Advocate 109
Issue: Whether T’s extradition was barred by reason of the passage of time; whether it would be incompatible with Art 8 ECHR.
Raichandani and Raichandani v The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China 116
Issue: Whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive by reason of the passage of time.
Mucelli v Government of Albania; Moulai v Deputy Public Prosecutor in Creteil France (a French Judicial Authority) 122
Issue: Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal when notice of appeal had been lodged out-of-time.
Sonea v Mehedinti District Court (a Romanian Judicial Authority) 136
Issue: Whether, where S had been convicted in his absence and enjoyed the full right to a retrial, the European Arrest Warrant was properly drafted as a conviction warrant.
Mauro v Government of the USA 140
Issue: Whether failing to file tax returns and evading income tax were “extradition offences” within the meaning of s137 Extradition Act 2003.
Szombathely City Court (and two other Hungarian Judicial Authorities) v Ronald Fenyvesi and Kalman Fenyvesi 143
Issue: Under what circumstances fresh evidence is admissible in a statutory appeal to the High Court under the Extradition Act 2003.
Office of Public Prosecutor of Hamburg, Germany v Hughes 149
Issue: Whether the reference in s2(3)(b) Extradition Act 2003 to “any other warrant” referred to any other domestic warrant or any other European Arrest Warrant; whether a decision on that point of law (Louca) had prospective effect only; and whether the Notice of Appeal was invalid because it was not endorsed with the correct date of arrest.
Kalniets v District Court of Ogre, Latvia 153
Issue: Whether K’s extradition was barred because Latvian prison conditions breached Art 3 ECHR; whether fresh evidence was admissible on appeal to the High Court.
Von der Pahlen v Leoben High Court, Austria 156
Issue: Whether a European Arrest Warrant was invalid for want of particulars under s2(4)(c) Extradition Act 2003; whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive by reason of the passage of time.
R v Neil Seddon (appeal under s13 Administration of Justice Act 1960) 163
Issue: Whether the principle of specialty prevented a person extradited to the UK for blackmail from being dealt with for the Bail Act offence of failing to surrender to his bail for which he had not been extradited.
Hutton v Government of Australia 169
Issue: Whether it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite H by reason of either the passage of time or his mental condition (paranoid schizophrenia), and whether the proceedings constituted an abuse of process.
Yuen v Secretary of State for the Home Department 178
Issue: Whether it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite Y to Hong Kong by reason of the passage of time and/or her mental condition; whether extradition would breach Art 8 ECHR.
The District Court in Martin, Slovak Republic v Zigmund 187
Issue: Whether the District Judge had been right to conclude that Z had not deliberately absented himself from his trial.
Haynes v The Court of Magistrates, Malta (No 2) 189
Issue: Whether it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite H by reason of the passage of time; whether the proceedings constituted an abuse of process.
Tazbir v Regional Court in Gdansk, Poland 195
Vincent Brown (formerly Vincent Bajinya), Charles Munyaneza, Emmanuel Nteziryayo and Celestin Ugirashebuja and v (1) Government of Rwanda and (2) Secretary of State for the Home Department 197
Issue: Whether the appellants would receive a fair trial in Rwanda on charges of genocide.
Trenk v District Court in Plzen-Mesto, Czech Republic 234
Issue: Whether T was being sought as an accused person or merely for questioning.
District Court in Ostroleka, Second Criminal Division (a Polish Judicial Authority) v (1) Daniel Dytlow and (2) Arkadiusz Dytlow 238
Issue: Whether the grant of asylum operated as a bar to extradition.
Gomes and Goodyer v Government of Trinidad and Tobago 243
Issue: The correct approach to the passage of time bar to extradition as set out in ss14 and 82 Extradition Act 2003.
Symeou v Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Court of Appeal, Patras, Greece 251
Issue: Whether extradition proceedings were an abuse of process where the evidence was allegedly obtained by coercion, manipulation and a failure to summon S as required under Greek law; whether the passage of time rendered extradition unjust or oppressive; whether it would be incompatible with Arts 3, 6 and 8 of the ECHR.
Milan Spanović v Government of Croatia 262
Issue: Whether S’s extradition to Croatia on war crimes charges was barred by the passage of time, extraneous considerations, conviction in absence, human rights, his mental condition or specialty grounds.
Norris v (1) Government of the USA and (2) Secretary of State for the Home Department 273
Issue: Whether N’s extradition was incompatible with Art 8 ECHR; whether the Court should certify a question of law for the House of Lords regarding a potential breach of the specialty principle involved in US sentencing practice.
Taylor v Government of the USA and Secretary of State for the Home Department 287
Issue: Whether updated medical evidence entitled T to apply to reopen the dismissal of his statutory appeal, or whether he was limited to making representations to the Secretary of State on human rights grounds.
Moulai v Deputy Public Prosecutor in Creteil France 294
Issue: Whether the appeal had to be taken to be allowed because time had expired for hearing the appeal under s31 Extradition Act 2003; whether a European Arrest Warrant was an “accusation” or “conviction” warrant; whether the EAW provided sufficient particulars to satisfy s2 of the 2003 Act.
Farnesi and Fawaz v Court of Livorno, Italy 302
Issue: Whether a European Arrest Warrant was sufficiently particularised to comply with s2(4)(c) Extradition Act 2003; whether the offences were extradition offences, whether the District Judge had been right to be satisfied as to identity; whether extradition was incompatible with Art 8 ECHR.
Finch v Public Prosecutor, Tribunal de Grande Instance, Boulogne-sur-mer, France 305
Issue: Whether it would be oppressive to extradite F to France by reason of the passage of time.
R (Navadunskis) v Serious Organised Crime Agency and a Lithuanian Judicial Authority 309
Issue: Whether judicial review was available to challenge the decision to remove N to Lithuania following the exhaustion of the procedures under the Extradition Act 2003.
Gabriel v Court of First Instance and Instruction No 1 of Cadiz, Spain (a Spanish Judicial Authority) 313
Issue: Whether a European Arrest Warrant was insufficiently particularised for the purposes of s2(4)(c) Extradition Act 2003; whether it was clear that G was being sought as an accused person and not merely for questioning.
Onwuzulike v Government of the USA 315
Issue: Whether O’s extradition to the USA was a disproportionate interference with his rights under Art 8 ECHR, in particular in light of the argument that the UK was the more appropriate forum for his prosecution; whether the proceedings constituted an abuse of process for the CPS’s alleged failure to follow the Guidance on USA/UK forum.
Adamiak v Krosno Regional Court, Poland
Chyba v District Court in Strakonice, Czech Republic
Deya v Government of Kenya
Dirsyte v Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Lithuania
District Court in Ostroleka, Second Criminal Division (a Polish Judicial Authority) v (1) Daniel Dytlow and (2) Arkadiusz Dytlow
District Court of Michalovce, Slovakia v Badi
Farnesi and Fawaz v Court of Livorno, Italy
Finch v Public Prosecutor, Tribunal de Grande Instance, Boulogne-sur-mer, France
Gabriel v Court of First Instance and Instruction No 1 of Cadiz, Spain (a Spanish Judicial Authority)
Gomes and Goodyer v Government of Trinidad and Tobago
Haynes v The Court of Magistrates, Malta (No 2)