Re-Extradition to a Third State
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/002201839906300504 |
| Published date | 01 October 1999 |
| Date | 01 October 1999 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The Journal
of
Criminal Law
that the Official Solicitor had rested his claim not only on s 4 of the
Administration of Justice Act 1982,
but
also on a parallel rule of com-
mon
law which, too, would allow substituted parental services to be
ignored, on the principle of the decision in Hay v
Hughes;
but
Rougier J
here suggested that Hayv
Hughes
was a 'sympathetic' decision, based on
the law at a time
when
the exclusion of benefits was being introduced
piecemeal, that is, before the comprehensive terms of s 4 of
the
1982
Act.
Today,
in the light of the generality of the terms of s 4, 'there is
no need for any parallel common law rule'.
In
the present case, the
Board's decision that ·there was no loss seems to show that they had
progressed no further than the first stage of the assessment. Had they
proceeded to the second stage, they could
not
have avoided the
conclusion that s 4 applied to the facts of this case.
Re-Extradition to a Third State
R v
Home
Secretary,
ex p
Johnson
[1999] 2
WLR
932
The applicant for judicial review of the Home Secretary's decisions in
this case was an Australian business consultant
who
had been extradited
from Austria to the UK and tried on charges offraud in this country. He
was acquitted on those charges, but was immediately re-arrested in
respect of charges made against him in Australia, as the authorities of
that country had sought his extradition on charges of conspiracy to
defraud
and
fraudulent trading, offences committed in Australia. The
Home Secretary had by a diplomatic note obtained the assent of the
Austrian government to the re-extradition of the accused to Australia. A
metropolitan stipendiary magistrate having ordered the applicant's com-
mittal, the Home Secretary made an order by warrant for his return to
Australia pursuant to s 12(1) of theExtradition Act 1989;
and
he later
rejected further representations that he should revoke his decision and
his order for the re-extradition of the accused to Australia.
mitted by a magistrate may be made the subject of any order for his
return to the foreign country which may be made within the Act; and
by s 12(2) the Home Secretary may refrain from making such an order
because of the trivial nature of the offence, or of the effects of
the
passage of time, or absence of good faith in the making of the accusation.
The European Convention on Extradition 1957 (signed by the UK and
Austria), which permits extradition between
the
two countries, pro-
vides, in Article 14, a rule of specialty restricting the trial of
any
person
extradited, in respect of offences committed before
the
extradition, to
those which were stated to be the ground for his extradition. And Article
15 imposes a rule as to re-extradition to a third state, which requires the
consent of the original surrendering state before such re-extradition.
The European Convention on Human Rights provides, by Article 6(3),
that aperson charged with a criminal offence has a right to defend
396
To continue reading
Request your trial