Source: https://southsideonlinepublishing.com/en/2008-5
Timestamp: 2019-10-14 05:50:10
Document Index: 714744741

Matched Legal Cases: ['Arts 3', 'Art 8', 'Art 8', 'Art 8', 'Arts 2', 'Arts 3', 'Art 8', 'Art 8', 'Arts 3', 'Art 3', 'Art 3']

Raimondas Baksys v Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania 1
Issue: Whether a ruling in which a deferred sentence was enforced constituted a ruling in absentia and so raised a bar under s20 Extradition Act 2003, and on whom the burden lay of bringing proof in that regard.
Forbes v Director of Public Prosecutions & Commissioner of Correctional Services 3
Issue: Whether the Jamaican Extradition Act 1991 was inconsistent with the Jamaican Constitution.
Mucelli v Government of the Republic of Albania and Secretary of State for the Home Department (Interested Party) 4
Issue: (1) Whether M had deliberately absented himself from trial, (2) whether, having been convicted in his absence, M would be entitled to a retrial upon return to Albania; (3) whether M’s extradition was barred by the passage of time and (4) whether the notice of appeal was served out of time and, if so, whether the court had power to grant an extension of time for serving notice of appeal in extradition proceedings.
David Charles Watson v Public Prosecutor M Bonheur (a Dutch Judicial Authority) 17
Issue: Whether the district judge had been entitled to find that W’s extradition was not barred by the passage of time.
Jan Krzyzowski v The Circuit Court in Gliwice, Poland 19
Issue: Whether the district judge had been entitled to find that K’s extradition was not barred by the passage of time.
R (Ahmad) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 25
Issue: Whether permission should be granted to judicially review the Secretary of State’s decision ordering A’s extradition to the USA on terrorism charges on the grounds that extradition would deprive A of his right to conduct civil litigation against the Metropolitan Police in relation to an alleged assault.
Gilbert Ektor v National Public Prosecutor of Holland 28
Issue: Whether the European Arrest Warrant provided sufficient particulars of the alleged conduct to satisfy the requirements of s2(4)(c) Extradition Act 2003.
Harvey v Judicial Authority of Portugal – Tribunal Judicial de Albufeira 31
Issue: Whether a European Arrest Warrant contained sufficient particulars to meet the requirements of s2 Extradition Act 2003 and whether the district judge had been entitled to find that H’s extradition was not barred by the passage of time.
Jaso, Lopez and Albisu Hernandez v Central Criminal Court No 2 Madrid 35
Issue: Whether European Arrest Warrants were defective in not containing the particulars required by s2 Extradition Act 2003; whether the extradition of the appellants would violate their rights under Arts 3, 5, 6 or 8 ECHR; whether there was a risk of a breach by the Spanish authorities of the specialty rule; and whether the proceedings constituted an abuse of process.
Franco Stefan v Government of Albania 49
Issue: Whether the district judge had been entitled to conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that S was the person sought by the Government of Albania.
Tuvia Stern v Government of the USA 52
Issue: (i) whether S could raise a bar to his extradition on appeal that he did not raise and in respect of which he did not adduce evidence in the court below; (ii) whether the passage of time was available as a bar to extradition for a person who fled the requesting country; and (iii) whether it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite S by reason of the passage of time since he was alleged to have committed the offences.
Wiercinski v 2nd Division of the Criminal Circuit in Olsztyn, Poland 55
Issue: Whether W could be extradited to serve an aggregate sentence imposed for 3 offences one of which was not an extradition offence, where there was no indication as to the sentence imposed in respect of the other 2, extraditable, offences.
Re Mucelli 57
Issue: Whether M’s detention was unlawful where his statutory appeal had been dismissed on the basis of failure to comply with a statutory time-limit but would have been allowed but for that failure.
In re Hilali 61
Geary v Government of Canada 67
Issue: Whether it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite G by reason of the passage of time.
Davis and Griffiths v Court of Instruction No 2 Benidorm, Alicante, Spain 71
Issue: Whether it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite D and G to Spain for murder by reason of the passage of time; whether a requested person may rely upon the passage of time bar when he has fled from the authorities in the country seeking extradition but not in order to evade prosecution for the offences in respect of which the extradition is sought.
Jaworski v Regional Court Katowice, Poland 75
Issue: Whether J’s extradition was barred by reason of the passage of time having rendered his extradition unjust and/or oppressive.
Pilecki v Circuit Court of Legnica, Poland 78
Issue: Whether a European Arrest Warrant which referred to an aggregate sentence in respect of multiple offences failed to comply with s2(6)(e) Extradition Act 2003; whether it had to be shown that the sentence that was imposed in respect of each offence, taken on its own, was at least 4 months.
Government of the USA v Stanley Tollman and Beatrice Tollman 85
Issue: Whether the district judge had been right to conclude that Mr T’s extradition would be unjust and oppressive by reason of the passage of time and that Mrs T’s extradition was barred by reason of her mental condition.
R (Raissi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 109
Zak v Regional Court of Bydgoszcz, Poland 134
Issue: Whether the conduct set out in a European Arrest Warrant amounted to an extradition offence, when it did not specify the mens rea that would be required for the corresponding offences in English law; whether extradition was barred by reason of the passage of time and/or was incompatible with Art 8 ECHR, given the relative triviality of the offence and the suspect’s established family life in the UK.
Gercans v A Latvian Judicial Authority 138
Issue: Whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal when the application was filed and served out of time.
Palinski v The Regional Court of Bydgoszcz, Poland 141
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 offences were “extradition offences”.
Paschayan v Government of Switzerland 144
Issue: Whether P’s extradition was sought as an accused person or merely as a suspect.
Kucera v District Court of Karvina, Czech Republic 149
Issue: Whether, when an aggregate sentence had been imposed for 2 offences, of which one was not an extradition offence, a European Arrest Warrant was valid; whether theft was an extradition offence in the absence of an indication of a separate sentence for it; whether it would breach specialty if K might be required to serve a sentence in part attributable to a non-extradition offence; whether extradition was compatible with Art 8 ECHR.
Norris v Government of the USA and others 159
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 his rights under the ECHR.
Slivka v District Court of Prague, Czech Republic 180
Issue: Whether extradition was incompatible with Art 8 ECHR.
McLean v High Court of Dublin, Ireland 182
Issue: Whether extradition was incompatible with Arts 2 and 3 ECHR on the basis that M’s life was under threat from non-state agents in Ireland and that the Irish authorities would be unable to provide him with a reasonable level of protection in prison.
Tamarevichute v Government of the Russian Federation 188
Issue: Whether T’s extradition was barred because of a real risk that she might be prejudiced at her trial on account of her Roma ethnicity; whether extradition was compatible with her rights under Arts 3, 5 and/or 6 ECHR.
Oraczko v District Court in Krakow 204
Issue: Whether extradition was barred as oppressive by reason of the passage of time.
R (Ahsan) v DPP and Government of the USA (interested party); Ahsan v Government of the USA and Secretary of State for the Home Department; Tajik v Government of the USA and Secretary of State for the Home Department 207
Issue: Whether offences were extradition offences, whether extradition was unjust or oppressive in light of T’s physical and mental condition, whether the extradition proceedings were an abuse of process, whether extradition was barred by extraneous considerations, whether extradition should have been refused for risk of a breach of speciality, whether extradition breached Art 8 ECHR and whether the Attorney General’s guidance on concurrent jurisdiction should have been considered by the DPP in deciding not to prosecute A in the UK.
R (Lakatus) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Government of the Republic of Poland (Interested Party) 231
Issue: Whether the Secretary of State had erred in approaching the question of whether extradition would breach L’s Art 8 rights and/or be oppressive by reason of the passage of time or otherwise, in terms of s12(2)(a) Extradition Act 1989.
Glica v Regional Court of Bydgoszcz, Poland 235
Issue: Whether a European Arrest Warrant complied with s2 Extradition Act 2003; whether the English translation was inaccurate and, if so, whether that precluded extradition.
Moulai v Deputy Public Prosecutor in Creteil, France 237
Issue: Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal when notice of appeal had been lodged out-of-time
Zakowski v Regional Court in Szczecin, Poland 249
Issue: Whether a European Arrest Warrant contained sufficient particulars of the conviction for the purposes of s2(6)(b) Extradition Act 2003; whether the reference in s2(6)(c) of the 2003 Act to “any other warrant” referred to any other domestic warrant or any other EAW.
McCormack v Tribunal de Grande Instance, Quimper, France 252
Issue: Whether M’s extradition was sought as an accused person or merely as a suspect.
Pietrzak v Regional Court of Wloclawek, Poland 256
Issue: Whether a European Arrest Warrant was invalid because it misstated the remaining term of imprisonment to be served.
Krompalcas v Prosecutor General’s Office, Lithuania 258
Issue: Whether K was a fugitive from justice and so disentitled from relying on the passage of time as a bar to his extradition pursuant to ss11 and 14 Extradition Act 2003.
Mustafa Kamel Mustafa (otherwise Abu Hamza) v (1) Government of the USA, (2) Secretary of State for the Home Department 263
Issue: Whether it would be an abuse of process to extradite M to face trial for the alleged offences in the USA because the request was founded on evidence obtained by torture or ill-treatment; whether extradition would be incompatible with M’s rights under Arts 3, 6 and 8 ECHR; and whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive by reason of the passage of time since the alleged offences.
Olah v Regional Court in Plzen, Czech Republic 278
Issue: Whether the district judge had been wrong to refuse to grant an adjournment for the defence to obtain psychiatric evidence in relation to a potential claim that O’s mental condition rendered it unjust or oppressive to extradite him, and if so whether there was a remedy in a statutory appeal or judicial review.
Saeed Aryantash v Tribunal de Grand Instance, Lille, France 279
Issue: Whether typographical errors in a European Arrest Warrant regarding dates rendered it invalid
Jervis v Office of the Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal, Rennes, France 282
Issue: Whether it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite J by reason of his mental condition.
Bogdani v Government of the Republic of Albania 284
Issue: Whether, having been convicted in his absence, B would be entitled to a re-trial upon return to Albania and whether new evidence from the Government of Albania should be admitted on that issue.
Khemiri, Ignaoua and Chehidi v the Court of Milan, Italy 290
Issue: Whether return to Italy involved a real risk that K, I and C would be removed to Tunisia, where they would suffer treatment in breach of Art 3 ECHR.
Caldarelli v Court of Naples 300
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.
Gary McKinnon v (1) Government of the USA and (2) Secretary of State for the Home Department 309
Issue: Whether M’s extradition to the USA for trial on charges of having “hacked” into US government computers and networks was barred by human rights considerations and/or whether the proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of process because of the plea bargaining history.
Stefan (being prosecuted as Nuri Seferi) v Government of the Republic of Albania 315
Issue: Whether S’s return to Albania would be oppressive or breach Art 3 ECHR in light of his mental and physical health and conditions in Albanian prisons.
Bogdani v Government of the Republic of Albania
Caldarelli v Court of Naples
David Charles Watson v Public Prosecutor M Bonheur (a Dutch Judicial Authority)
Davis and Griffiths v Court of Instruction No 2 Benidorm, Alicante, Spain
Forbes v Director of Public Prosecutions & Commissioner of Correctional Services
Franco Stefan v Government of Albania
Geary v Government of Canada
Gercans v A Latvian Judicial Authority
Gilbert Ektor v National Public Prosecutor of Holland
Glica v Regional Court of Bydgoszcz, Poland
Government of the USA v Stanley Tollman and Beatrice Tollman