Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2013] All ER (D) 288 (Feb)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Administrative Court (London)
Judge:

Mitting J (judgment given extempore)

Judgment Dates: 21 February 2013

Catchwords

Extradition - Extradition order - Appeal - Appellant being convicted by Belgian court in absentia - Appellant subsequently participating in hearing before Belgian court of appeal - Appellant's extradition being ordered - Appellant appealing - Whether appellant being convicted in his absence - European Convention on Human Rights, arts 5 and 6 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, art 47.

The Case

Extradition Extradition order. The appellant was convicted by a Belgian court in his absence. He was subsequently present and represented before the court of appeal, which confirmed his conviction. His extradition was sought, but he opposed in on the basis that he had been convicted in his absence. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the appellant had been convicted in his presence as he had participated in a hearing before the Belgian court of appeal.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.