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

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield welcomes new employment partner, Tom McLaughlin

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

National specialist pensions law firm strengthens team with three new appointments

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit appoints Christian Abletshauser to lead family law practice

NEWS
Burges Salmon appoints Benn Richards to strengthen Contentious Insolvency offering
A High Court decision has clarified that a home may be unfit for human habitation not only where conditions endanger health or safety, but also where they seriously undermine comfort and convenience

A longer time limit for employment tribunal claims, new charity law thresholds, property tribunal recruitment and appellate guidance on small-claims costs feature in the latest Civil Way round-up

A recent High Court ruling could make issue estoppel considerably more complex in cross-border litigation, requiring parties to consider the foreign law governing the underlying claim
The Supreme Court has overturned Cheshire West’s bright-line test for deprivation of liberty, replacing it with a broader, more contextual assessment that gives greater weight to an individual’s wishes, feelings and apparent consent
back-to-top-scroll