header-logo header-logo

19 January 2012
Issue: 7497 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Extradition

Tappin v Government of the United States of America [2012] EWHC 22 (Admin), [2012] All ER (D) 47 (Jan)

 

In considering a request for extradition, it was established by authority that oppression was directed to the hardship to persons resulting from changes in their circumstances during the period to be taken into consideration, but that oppression and injustice might overlap. Where the responsibility lay for any delay was not generally relevant, since what mattered was the effect of those events which would not have happened if the trial had been conducted with ordinary promptitude. The test of oppression would not easily be satisfied and required hardship greater than that inevitably inherent in the act of extradition. 
If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Switalskis—five appointments

Switalskis—five appointments

Firm expands national abuse compensation team

Mathys & Squire—nine promotions

Mathys & Squire—nine promotions

IP firm announces new partners and senior promotions across UK offices

Carey Olsen—five promotions

Carey Olsen—five promotions

Carey Olsen promotes five lawyers to the partnership

NEWS
Executors may be overlooking billions of pounds in estate assets hidden in forgotten investments and misplaced share certificates
Britain’s booming non-surgical cosmetics market is operating in what some critics describe as a regulatory ‘Wild West’
Family contact disputes are becoming an increasingly prominent feature of Court of Protection litigation
Material obtained through US discovery applications may have a much longer legal life than many litigants realise
English courts are developing a distinctly practical approach to sanctions disputes arising from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine
back-to-top-scroll