Beese v Governor of Ashford Remand Centre
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1973 |
| Court | Divisional Court |
Extradition - Treaty - Construction - Production before magistrate of “sufficient evidence … within two months … of … apprehension” - Whether requiring proceedings to be completed within two months -
The applicants, who were arrested in England as a preliminary to extradition proceedings for murder and aggravated robbery in West Germany, were interviewed by German detectives. They were brought before a magistrate within two months of their apprehension, and the evidence then given included that of the German detectives who stated that each applicant had made virtually a total confession at the interview. The proceedings were not completed within two months of the applicants' apprehension. They were committed pending removal.
On an application for a writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that the German detectives had not observed the Judges' Rules and that article XII of the extradition treaty between the United Kingdom and Germany required the proceedings to be heard out to a finish before the expiry of two months from the applicants' apprehension: —
Held, (1) that the Judges' Rules were inapplicable to the investigation pursued by the German detectives (post, p. 971D).
(2) That, construing the treaty as a contract limiting the operation of the Extradition Act 1870, nothing in article XII of the treaty required the proceedings to be completed within two months from the date of apprehension (post, pp. 973B–C, 974D–E); and accordingly, since sufficient evidence to justify the applicants' committal for trial having been placed before the magistrate within the two months, the application would be dismissed.
Quaere. Whether the Judges' Rules apply in committal proceedings before examining justices (post, pp. 971D–E, 975A–B).
The following case is referred to in the judgment of Lord Widgery C.J.:
Reg. v. Wilson (
The following additional cases were cited in argument:
Bluhm, In re [
Guerin, In re (
Reg. v. Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Armah [
Reg. v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Ex parte Savundranayan [
Reg. v. Weil (
Terraz, Ex parte (
United States of America v. Gaynor [
APPLICATION for a writ of habeas corpus.
The applicants, Erich Beese and Wolfgang Ostermann, applied for an order that a writ of habeas corpus issue directed to the Governor of Ashford Remand Centre where they were detained pending removal to the Federal Republic of Germany consequent on an order made by the Bow Street magistrate (E. C. S. Russell, Esq.) on May 11, 1973, under the Extradition Act 1870.
The facts are stated in the judgment of Lord Widgery C.J.
John Mullick for the applicants.
Claud Allen for the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Richard Du Cann for the Governor of Ashford Remand Centre.
LORD WIDGERY C.J. In these proceedings Mr. Mullick moves for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of one Erich Beese and one Wolfgang Ostermann. The circumstances of the case are that an elderly woman was brutally done to death and robbed in Wesel on or about February 24, 1973. The two applicants came to England from Germany shortly after that date, and on March 2, 1973, they were arrested by British police officers on a warrant issued pursuant to the provisions of the Extradition Act 1870. In other words the arrest was intended as a preliminary to the extradition of the applicants to Germany. Two of the German detectives who had been concerned with investigating the crime in Wesel came to this country and interviewed the applicants, who were then, I think, as they now are, in Her Majesty's Remand Centre at Ashford, and consequent on that a hearing under the Extradition Act 1870 began at Bow Street on April 27.
On April 27 a considerable volume of evidence was called on behalf of the prosecutor including the evidence of the two German detectives, and among other things they spoke to the fact that, when they had interviewed the two applicants in custody at Ashford, each had made what was virtually a total confession of the offence. Accordingly, by the end of the day on April 27 there had been put before the magistrate at Bow Street evidence which was, on any view, sufficient to commit the applicants for trial in this country if the offence alleged against them had taken place in this country. But the proceedings did not finish on April 27; there was a certain amount of additional evidence still to be called and the magistrate's calendar being what it was, it was not possible to complete the proceedings until May 11.
On the morning of May 11 when the case was called on again, objection was taken by counsel for the applicants that the magistrate no longer had jurisdiction to deal with the case and, although I must return to it in detail presently, the basis of that submission was that, under article XII of the relevant treaty between this country and West Germany, it was not possible, according to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robert Bruce Wright V. The Scottish Ministers
...think that it had to be construed as though it were a domestic statute': Regina v. Governor of Ashford Remand Centre, ex parte Beese [1973] 1 W.L.R. 969, 973, per Lord Widgery C.J. In applying this second principle, closely related as it is to the first, it must be remembered that the recip......
-
R v Governor of Pentonville Prison ex parte Sotiriadis
...magistrate apparently treats the requirement of Article XII as satisfied. If what happened in the instant case and that of In re Beese [1973] 1 W.L.R. 969 are any guide, he does not go on to consider, at the end of two months from the arrest on provisional warrant, whether the evidence prod......
-
R (Bleta) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
...to think that it had to construed as though it were a domestic statute': Reg v Governor of Ashford Remand Centre, Ex parte Beese [1973] 1 WLR 969, 973, per Lord Widgery CJ. In applying this second principle, closely related as it is to the first, it must be remembered that the reciprocal r......
-
R (Al-Fawwaz) v Governor of Brixton Prison
...a mistake to think that it had to be construed as though it were a domestic statute: R v Governor of Ashford Remand Centre, Ex p Beese [1973] 1 WLR 969, 973, per Lord Widgery CJ. In applying this second principle, closely related as it is to the first, it must be remembered that the recipr......