Court: Magistrates' Court
United States Of America v Assange  EW Misc 1 (MagC)
A UK judge has ruled that the Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, cannot be extradited to the United States of America to face charges of espionage, following concerns over his mental health and risk of suicide. Prosecutors in the USA accused Assange of helping US defence analyst Chelsea Manning breach the US Espionage Act, and of […]
Magistrates Court finds that extradition of four individuals to Russia could violate Article 3 in the absence of effective monitoring of prison conditions
This case concerned the extradition requests of four individuals on the part of the Russian Federation. The Court had to consider whether the extradition requests should be discharged on the basis of Article 3. The first question for the Court was whether the conditions assured by the Russian Federation, if in place, would still lead to a breach of the requested person’s Article 3 rights. If not, the Court would consider whether the proposed method of monitoring of the assurances given by the Russian Federation would be effective in practice and therefore reduce the risk of an Article 3 breach.
The Chief Magistrate ruled that there is no effective monitoring of prison conditions in Russia. In the absence of effective monitoring, the Court held that if extradited the individuals would be held in conditions which give rise to a real risk of a violation of their Article 3 rights that the absence of effective independent monitoring of prison conditions increases that risk.
The decision may be the subject of an appeal.
An application by Julian Assange to cancel an arrest warrant
The Court refused to withdraw the arrest warrant for Julian Assange that had been issued pursuant to the Bail Act 1976, s 7. In doing so, it emphasised that “many authorities underline the importance of a defendant attending court when bailed to do so and they describe the way that the administration of justice can […]
India v Chawla
Extradition of the requested person sought to prosecute him for his role in the fixing of cricket matches played between India and South Africa during the tour of the South African Cricket Team to India. The Court held that there was a risk to the requested person’s ECHR, art 3 rights due to the prison conditions in India. The assurance provided by India was insufficient in its current form due the lack of an effective system of protection and the general nature of the assurance. The requested person was discharged under the Extradition Act 2003, s 87.
The Government of the United States of America v Giese
The USA Government sought the extradition of the defendant as he was wanted to stand trial on nineteen counts of serious sexual offences. The case was not a question of doubting the good faith of the US officials who provided the assurance that the defendant would not face an order for civil commitment, but rather the enforceability of the assurance in the future. The Court held that there were no bars to extradition and no human rights issues.