Three French extradition appeals stayed pending further responses from the relevant authorities in relation to ECHR, art 3 considerations
Shumba & Ors v Public Prosecutor in Nanterre, County Court, France & Ors  EWHC 1762 (Admin)
- Related Member(s):
- Related Practice Area(s):
- Extradition and Mutual Assistance, Human Rights
- Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)
There are three appeals before the Court. The first appellant was subject to a European arrest warrant issued by the Public Prosecutor in Nanterre and the second and third appellants were subject to conviction warrants issued by the Public Prosecutor of Bobigny County Court, and the First Instance Court in Bobigny, respectively [1-2]. Extradition orders were made for all three appellants and each had a common ground of appeal; that in each case their extradition would breach their ECHR, art 3 rights, contrary to the Extradition Act 2003, s 21 . Accordingly, it was submitted that their extradition orders should be discharged as per s 26 of the 2003 Act. Furthermore, the first and second appellant submitted additional grounds of appeal under s 14 (passage of time) and s 21 (breach of ECHR, art 8) .
The Court dismissed the appeals of the first and second appellants in relation to their claims under the Extradition Act 2003, s 14 and ECHR, art 8. However, with regards to the ECHR, art 3 appeal ground, which was raised by all three appellants, the Court considered it necessary to make requests for further information from the relevant French authorities. Also, due to time considerations a response was required by 7 Sept 2018, as opposed to the usual 28 days as in the case of Yaser Mohammed.
Alison Macdonald QC was involved in this case.