The Admissibility of Evidence in Extradition Proceedings: R v Governor of Brixton Prison, ex parte Levin
| DOI | 10.1177/136571279800200304 |
| Author | Susan Nash |
| Date | 01 July 1998 |
| Published date | 01 July 1998 |
| Subject Matter | Case Note |
CASE
NOTE
The
admissibility
of
evidence
in
extradition
proceedings:
Rv
Governor
of
Brixton
Prison,
ex
parte
Levin
By
Susan
Nash
Principal
Lecturer,
University
of
Westminster
In Rv
Governor
ofBrixton
Prison,
exparte
Levin
[1997]3 WLR117
the
House
of
Lords was called
upon
to consider. inter alia.
whether
the
normal
rules
of
criminal
evidence
and
procedure
apply to
extradition
proceedings. Dismissing an
appeal
against
the
refusal by
the
Divisional
Court
of
an application for a
writ
of
habeas
corpus.
the
court
held
that
since
extradition
proceedings
are
criminal
proceedings.
the
committing
magistrate
was
entitled
to apply
the
provisions
of
the
Police
and
Criminal
Evidence Act 1984 (the 1984 Act).
Furthermore.
their
Lordships were
of
the
opinion
that
computer
printouts.
tendered
as a record
of
the
transfer
of
funds.
should
not
be regarded as hearsay. This case is a welcome development
and
dispels any
doubt
as to
the
nature
of
extradition
proceedings.
The case
of
exparte
Levin
concerned
aRussian
citizen
detained
under
s. 1(3)
of
the
Extradition Act 1989 (the 1989 Act) to
await
directions
of
the
Secretary
of
State for his
extradition
to
the
USA.
It
was alleged
that
he
had
used his skills
as a
computer
programmer
to
gain
unauthorised
access to
the
computerised
fund
transfer service
of
a
bank
in
the
USA.
Using a
computer
terminal
in
St
Petersburg. he
fraudulently
made
40 transfers
of
funds from
the
accounts
of
clients
of
Citibank in New Jersey. to
bank
accounts
controlled
by
himself
or
his accomplices. A
warrant
was issued for his
arrest
in
the
United States
District Court for
the
Southern
District
of
New York. He was
arrested
in
the
198
THE
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
OF
EVIDENCE
&
PROOF
To continue reading
Request your trial