header-logo header-logo

04 July 2014
Issue: 7613 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Extradition

Neteczca v Governor of Holloway Prison [2014] EWHC 2098 (Admin), [2014] All ER (D) 214 (Jun)

The statutory scheme did not permit the right of a requested person to be discharged to be circumvented by agreeing a later starting date after the expiry of the period identified in s 36(3)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003, unless reasonable cause was shown. Section 36(3)(a) of the Act specified the 10 days during which a person had to be extradited by reference to a starting day. That was the day on which the decision of the relevant court or the appeal became final, or proceedings on the appeal were discontinued. Section 36(8) of the Act identified two conditions which had to be satisfied before the judge was required to order discharge. The first was that s 36(2) of the Act had not been complied with. Where the starting date was the date on which the proceedings on the appeal were discontinued, once ten days had expired, then s 36(2) of the Act had not been complied with and the first condition

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll