header-logo header-logo

29 June 2012
Issue: 7520 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Extradition

BH (AP) and another v Lord Advocate and another (Scotland); KAS or H (AP) v Lord Advocate and another (Scotland) [2012] UKSC 24, [2012] All ER (D) 126 (Jun)

The approach adopted to Art 8 rights in extradition cases did not have to be radically different from that adopted in deportation or expulsion cases. The public interest in giving effect to a request for extradition was a constant factor in cases of that kind. Great weight would always have to be given to it, and the more serious the offence the greater would be that weight. The question, so far as the Art 8 right was concerned, was the same in both cases. Even in decisions concerning separation of parents from their children for deportation, detention or imprisonment, the best interests of the child had to be a primary consideration. The starting point was to assess whether the children’s best interests were outweighed by the strength of any other considerations. However, that did not require the decision-taker always to examine the interest of the children at the very

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

Freeths—Heather Gibson

Freeths—Heather Gibson

Freeths strengthens national tax team with Heather Gibson appointment

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise & Plimpton—Mary Lavelle

Debevoise expands London secondaries team with addition of Mary Lavelle

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law—Hestia Private Client

Excello Law welcomes ex-Irwin Mitchell team to launch Hestia Private Client

NEWS
Lawyers have welcomed plans to create specialist rape and serious sex offences courtrooms at every Crown Court
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
back-to-top-scroll