Court: Magistrates' Court
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.
Turkey v Nurhak Talay
Turkey sought the extradition of the claimant for “Terrorist” related offences. The Court, inter alia, considered whether there was an abuse of process, and any risk of breach of the ECHR, arts 2, 3, 6 and 8. Mark Summers QC and Aaron Watkins were involved in this case.
Government of the United States of America v Sarao
The requesting state sought extradition of the defendant to face trial for electronically manipulating the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, which allegedly led the market to fall or climb to the value of $40 million. The defendant argued that crimes which he was accused of were not offences in the UK, and that if a trial was necessary, it was in the interests of justice for it to occur in this jurisdiction. He also argued that the extradition would infringe ECHR, art 8 and that the US request was an abuse of process, because it was premised on a materially misleading factual basis. Held: The extradition request was valid.