header-logo header-logo

25 January 2013
Issue: 7545 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Extradition

Tenderenda v Polish Judicial Authority [2012] EWHC 3800 (Admin), [2013] All ER (D) 50 (Jan)

Section 2(6)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003 required “particulars of the conviction” to be given in the warrant. What s 2(6)(b) required was underlying evidence, of an enforceable judgment or decision in a civil law system where a judgment had not become final, and so enforceable, until a short period of time had elapsed after it had been pronounced. Evidence of that judgment could be given by identifying the court in which the judgment had been given, the file number of the case in which it was given, the particulars of the offence of which an individual was convicted and the date on which the judgment, which later became final, had been given.

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

Fieldfisher—Will Sharp

Fieldfisher—Will Sharp

Fieldfisher boosts structured finance practice with appointment of Will Sharp

gunnercooke—Thomas Bjorn & Peter Rudd-Clarke

gunnercooke—Thomas Bjorn & Peter Rudd-Clarke

gunnercooke grows its life sciences team with new partner hires

Leonard Curtis Legal—Mark Maguire & Kane Jones

Leonard Curtis Legal—Mark Maguire & Kane Jones

Leonard Curtis Legal expands corporate team with twonew appointments

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll