YD (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWCA Civ 1683
This is an appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) dated 21 November 2017, dismissing an appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal. That tribunal had dismissed the appellant’s appeal against a decision of the respondent of 13 October 2015 refusing him leave to remain in the United Kingdom. […]
Karaqi v Public Prosecutor's Office Of The Athens' Court Of Appeal, Greece  EWHC 2650 (Admin)
This was an appeal brought by the Appellant against an order for his extradition to Greece. The Appellant was convicted of armed robberies in Greece in 1995 and sentenced to 13 years imprisonment. In 1996, the Appellant escaped from prison in Greece. He came to the UK in 1997 and used his own name to […]
Home Department permitted to provide material relating to alleged terrorist to US Government, under Mutual Legal Assistance
R (on the application of Elgizouli) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department  EWHC 2516 (Admin)
The Divisional Court has handed down a judgment in a case involving a challenge to a decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to provide material to the US Government, pursuant to a request for Mutual Legal Assistance (‘MLA’).
MLA is a method of cooperation between states for obtaining assistance in the investigation or prosecution of criminal offences. In this case, the requested material related to the alleged terrorist activities of the claimant’s son, Shafee El Sheikh.
The principal issues for determination were whether the decision to provide MLA was compatible with the Data Protection Act 2018 and whether the decision was irrational. In particular, the issue was whether it was strictly necessary and proportionate to transfer personal data to a third country in support of a foreign prosecution in circumstances in which the Crown Prosecution Service had decided that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute Mr El Sheikh in this jurisdiction.
Held: the Divisional Court refused permission to apply for judicial review. The Court considered that the prospect of a domestic prosecution was not relevant to the question of whether it was necessary and proportionate to transfer data to a third country, and that it was not arguably irrational for the Secretary of State to fail to have regard to such a prospect in deciding to provide MLA.
Latvia v Karpickovs
Mr Boris Karpickovs was the subject of an extradition request from the Republic of Latvia. In refusing extradition under s.13 of the Extradition Act 2003, the judge concluded that the extradition request was brought for the purpose of silencing Mr Karpickovs as a result of his work for both the Russian and Latvian intelligence services and he might accordingly be prejudiced at his trial. The Court further concluded that there was a real risk of Mr Karpickovs suffering a flagrant denial of justice contrary to article 6 ECHR, due to the incentive of individuals to interfere with the usual course of justice in his case and the long-standing and deep-rooted problems with corruption within the Latvian judicial system.
Mark Summers QC and James Stansfeld represented Mr Boris Karpickovs, who was the subject of an extradition request from the Republic of Latvia. In refusing extradition under s.13 of the Extradition Act 2003, DJ Baraitser concluded that the extradition request was brought for the purpose of silencing Mr Karpickovs as a result of his work […]