||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 321 (Mar)
|| EWHC 564 (Admin)
||Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)
Scott Baker LJ and David Clarke J
||Mark Summers (instructed by Ahmed & Co) for the appellant.
||David Perry QC and Adina Ezekiel (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the government of the United States of America.
||20 March 2007
Extradition - Hearing - Extradition offence - Conduct constituting an extradition offence - Exorbitant jurisdiction - United States of America seeking extradition of appellant on terrorism charges - District judge sending case to Secretary of State - Whether warrant satisfying requirements of statute - Whether extradition barred by reason of exorbitant jurisdiction - , Sch 1, Pt 1, art 8 - , s 79(2)(d).
Extradition Hearing. The concept of exorbitant jurisdiction in extradition cases was one which had been largely if not wholly subsumed within human rights considerations and therefore the only place where it was likely to have any relevance was on an issue of proportionality for the purposes of art8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Exorbitant jurisdiction was not a separate bar to extradition. Moreover, any disparity of the maximum penalty available to the requesting state was an irrelevant consideration for the purpose of extradition, absent the risk of sentence of death.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary