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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll