‘The parents of Harry Dunn have dropped plans to sue the US government over his death in a crash allegedly involving the wife of an American intelligence official. Charlotte Charles and Tim Dunn said they had made the decision in the hope the Trump administration would allow suspect Anne Sacoolas to face the UK justice system.’
The Independent, 1st September 2020
‘This summer Newsletter has, as always, a range of articles. For those of us who, just, knew a time before the dishonesty test in Ghosh, it is disturbing that it has been described as a wrong turn, and Arthur Kendrick analyses for us the consequences of the recent judgment of the Court of Appeal in Barton and Booth. The pandemic may be the result of the mis-handling of food sources, and Dharmendra Toor reflects on a decision from the early days of the pandemic that highlights the importance for us of the compliance with food safety regulations by food manufacturers, restaurants and supermarkets. Sally Hobson provides a helpful analysis and some guidance when dealing with cases following extradition to the UK for offences for which the individual was not specifically extradited. We are grateful to Mary Prior Q.C. for another summary of important and instructive cases recently decided across the broad range of practice and procedure in the criminal courts.’
The 36 Group, July 2020
‘The newsletter features the following articles & videos:
– Louisa Collins: German Local Courts are Competent to Issue EAWs.
– Georgia Beatty: For Lexis Nexis – Coronavirus (COVID-19) and delays to extradition (Cosar v Governor of HMP Wandsworth).
– Ben Keith and Georgia Beatty: 5SAH Video – Anne Sacoolas – Extradition, Interpol and diplomatic immunity unravelled.
– Georgia Beatty: Interpol Red Notice issued against Anne Sacoolas – is prosecution in the UK possible?’
5SAH, 1st July 2020
‘This case concerns the impact of the coronavirus (COVID19) pandemic on the execution of European Arrest Warrants (EAWs). Extradition is presently impossible due to travel restrictions that have been imposed across Europe. The judgment considered the legality of repeated short-term extensions to the ten-day period in which extradition on an EAW must take place. Under Article 23 of the Framework Decision, extradition can be lawfully postponed where there are serious humanitarian reasons to do so, or where removal is prevented by circumstances beyond the control of any Member State. The court held that the coronavirus pandemic is capable of satisfying either criteria. A requested person is not entitled to be notified of any application to extend the extradition period, or to make representations at a hearing. However, in the present circumstances it is good practice to notify a requested person of any extension and to allow them access to legal representation.’
5SAH, 23rd June 2020
‘Last December, Anne Sacoolas was charged with causing death by dangerous driving following a road traffic accident in which 19-year-old Harry Dunn lost his life. It is alleged that she was driving on the wrong side of the road at the time. Mrs Sacoolas’ husband was employed in some official capacity at a United States Air Force communication station based at RAF Croughton.’
5SAH, 13th May 2020
‘Recent high-profile extradition cases have breathed new life into the old question of whether extradition relations between the US and the UK are imbalanced. On 12 February 2020, the Leader of the Opposition stated in Parliament “this lopsided treaty means the US can request extradition in circumstances that Britain cannot”. The Prime Minister replied: “to be frank, I think the right honourable Gentleman has a point in his characterisation of our extradition arrangements with the United States”. It is a question that has arisen time and again since the UK ratified the US/UK Extradition Treaty 2003 (‘the 2003 Treaty’). So, where does the truth of the matter lie?’
6KBW College Hill, 9th April 2020
‘Sometimes cases stand for far more than their strict ratio decidendi. The High Court’s recent ruling in Hafeez v Secretary of State for the Home Department is a prime example of such a case. The facts are simple. The US sought from the UK the extradition of Mr Hafeez, the alleged leader of an international crime syndicate and so-called “Sultan of drugs”. Unsurprisingly, Mr Hafeez resisted that motion, claiming that were he to be extradited, he would in all likelihood be sentenced to life without parole in the US, which would breach his rights under the ECHR. The UK, he argued, would be complicit in breaching his rights were it to proceed with the extradition. The High Court was to determine whether this was in fact the case.’
UK Constitutional Law Association, 3rd April 2020
‘Reflecting on the key legal themes of 2019 in Extradition cases, it was apparent that two issues had dominated court time in 2019; 1) prison conditions (as ever) and 2) whether Public Prosecutors are sufficiently independent to be treated as ‘Judicial Authorities’ for the purposes of the Act and the Framework Decision. Having reviewed the jurisprudence Rebecca Hill has produced a summary of key points in respect of each issue.’
5 SAH, 21st February 2020
‘Dual criminality is a concept extradition practitioners will be very familiar with. Under s64/65 or s137/138 of the Extradition Act 2003, there is a need for the conduct described within the warrant to amount to an offence within the UK. Three recent High Court decisions in this area highlight however that the issue is one which is highly fact-dependent and cannot be taken for granted in relation to any set of offences.’
5 SAH, 20th February 2020