header-logo header-logo

Extradition

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

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

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Gilson Gray—Jeremy Davy

Partner appointed as head of residential conveyancing for England

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

DR Solicitors—Paul Edels

Specialist firm enhances corporate healthcare practice with partner appointment

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll