header-logo header-logo

05 September 2014
Issue: 7620 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Extradition

Villota v Second Section of the National High Court of Madrid, Spain [2014] EWHC 2623 (Admin), [2014] All ER (D) 297 (Jul)

The appellant’s extradition to Spain was sought to face trial for terrorism-related offences allegedly occurring in 1991. The judge ordered his extradition and the appellant appealed. The Administrative Court, in dismissing the appeal, held that the domestic courts should be extremely reluctant to engage in evaluating the competing arguments about the local law of limitation in the requesting state and the judge had adequately considered the issue. Further, whatever the history might have been, the appellant would not be subject to torture on his return to Spain and would receive a trial that met the requirements of art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

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—James Paterson

Charles Russell Speechlys—James Paterson

Charles Russell Speechlys further bolsters Private Equity expertise with the appointment of James Paterson

Ellisons—Samuel Flower

Ellisons—Samuel Flower

Ellisons strengthens Rural Affairs team with senior appointment

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley adds insurance mergers and acquisitions partner to London office

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