Law Report: Proceedings for extradition are criminal proceedings

LAW REPORT 2 July 1997

Re Levin (application for a writ of habeas corpus); House of Lords (Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffman, Lord Hutton) 19 June 1997

Proceedings before a magistrate to decide whether there was sufficient evidence to commit a person to prison pending a decision by the Home Secretary as to his extradition were criminal proceedings.

The House of Lords dismissed the appellant's appeal against the refusal by the Divisional Court of his application for a writ of habeas corpus.

The appellant was a Russian citizen who had been detained with a view to extradition to the United States. It was alleged that he had used a computer terminal in St Petersburg to gain unauthorised access to the computerised fund transfer service of Citibank NA in New Jersey, and had made fraudulent transfers of funds.

The procedure for extradition to the United States was governed by the provisions of the Extradition Act 1870 which had been consolidated in Schedule I to the Extradition Act 1989. It was the duty of the metropolitan stipendiary magistrate, pursuant to paragraph 6(1) of Schedule I, to hear the appellant's case in the same manner as if he were charged with an indictable offence committed in this country.

The magistrate found that the evidence justified the appellant's committal for trial, and accordingly ordered his committal to prison to await the decision of the Home Secretary as to whether he should be surrendered. The appellant's application to the Divisional Court for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the evidence adduced before the magistrate had not justified his committal, was dismissed.

Alun Jones QC and James Lewis (Reynolds Dawson & Co) for the appellant; Paul Garlick QC and David Parry (CPS) for the Governor of Brixton Prison and the United States Government.

Lord Hoffman said that the evidence before the magistrate had included an affidavit of a director of Citibank which dealt with the computerised fund transfer service. The witness had produced copies of computer printouts recording unauthorised transfers of funds amounting in all to US$10.7m. Another employee of Citibank had given oral evidence explaining how the computer records were created.

An accomplice had identified the appellant as the person who had initiated the unauthorised payment instructions from his computer terminal in St Petersburg.

It had been submitted for the appellant that the computer printouts were hearsay and inadmissible. They would be admissible in criminal proceedings under section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, but R v Governor of Belmarsh Prison, ex parte Francis [1995] 1 WLR 1121 had decided that extradition proceedings were not criminal proceedings.

That argument seemed wrong at every stage. The printouts were not hearsay. They did not assert that the transfers had taken place: they recorded the transfers themselves.

Extradition proceedings were criminal proceedings, of a special kind, but criminal proceedings none the less. In ex parte Francis McCowan LJ had said only that section 78 of the 1984 Act had no application to extradition proceedings.

Both case law and the terms of the Extradition Act 1989 pointed to extradition proceedings being catogorised as criminal: see Armand v Home Secretary and Minister of Defence of Royal Netherlands Government [1943] AC 147; and section 9(2) of and paragraph 6(1) of Schedule I to the 1989 Act.

It had been submitted, alternatively, that extradition proceedings were criminal proceedings, and that the magistrate should have exercised his discretion under section 78(1) of the 1984 Act to exclude the evidence of the accomplice and of the computer printouts.

McCowan LJ had gone too far in ex parte Francis in saying that section 78 had no application to extradition proceedings. If it applied to committal proceedings it must also apply to extradition proceedings, although it was likely that since the committal in the present case extradition proceedings had been excluded from the operation of section 78 by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996.

The question was, however, whether the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the extradition proceedings that the court ought not to admit it. No reasonable magistrate would have excluded the evidence in the present case. The appeal was dismissed.

Kate O'Hanlon, Barrister

PROMOTED VIDEO
News
ebooksAn unforgettable anthology of contemporary reportage
Latest stories from i100
Have you tried new the Independent Digital Edition apps?
Independent Dating
and  

By clicking 'Search' you
are agreeing to our
Terms of Use.

iJobs Job Widget
iJobs People

Chief Executive

£28, 700: Whiskey Whiskey Tango: Property Management Company is seeking a brig...

COO / Chief Operating Officer

£80 - 100k + Bonus: Guru Careers: A COO / Chief Operating Officer is needed to...

HR Manager - Kent - £45,000

£40000 - £45000 per annum: Ashdown Group: HR Manager / Training Manager (L&D /...

HR Manager - Edgware, London - £45,000

£40000 - £45000 per annum + Benefits: Ashdown Group: HR Manager - Edgware, Lon...

Day In a Page

Italian couples fake UK divorce scam on an ‘industrial scale’

Welcome to Maidenhead, the divorce capital of... Italy

A look at the the legal tourists who exploited our liberal dissolution rules
Time to stop running: At the start of Yom Kippur and with anti-Semitism flourishing, one Jew can no longer ignore his identity

Time to stop running

At the start of Yom Kippur and with anti-Semitism flourishing, one Jew can no longer ignore his identity
Tom and Jerry cartoons now carry a 'racial prejudice' warning on Amazon

Tom and Jerry cartoons now carry a 'racial prejudice' warning on Amazon

The vintage series has often been criticised for racial stereotyping
An app for the amorous: Could Good2Go end disputes about sexual consent - without being a passion-killer?

An app for the amorous

Could Good2Go end disputes about sexual consent - without being a passion-killer?
Llansanffraid is now Llansantffraid. Welsh town changes its name, but can you spot the difference?

Llansanffraid is now Llansantffraid

Welsh town changes its name, but can you spot the difference?
Charlotte Riley: At the peak of her powers

Charlotte Riley: At the peak of her powers

After a few early missteps with Chekhov, her acting career has taken her to Hollywood. Next up is a role in the BBC’s gangster drama ‘Peaky Blinders’
She's having a laugh: Britain's female comedians have never had it so good

She's having a laugh

Britain's female comedians have never had it so good, says stand-up Natalie Haynes
Sistine Chapel to ‘sing’ with new LED lights designed to bring Michelangelo’s masterpiece out of the shadows

Let there be light

Sistine Chapel to ‘sing’ with new LEDs designed to bring Michelangelo’s masterpiece out of the shadows
Great British Bake Off, semi-final, review: Richard remains the baker to beat

Tensions rise in Bake Off's pastry week

Richard remains the baker to beat as Chetna begins to flake
Paris Fashion Week, spring/summer 2015: Time travel fashion at Louis Vuitton in Paris

A look to the future

It's time travel fashion at Louis Vuitton in Paris
The 10 best bedspreads

The 10 best bedspreads

Before you up the tog count on your duvet, add an extra layer and a room-changing piece to your bed this autumn
Arsenal vs Galatasaray: Five things we learnt from the Emirates

Arsenal vs Galatasaray

Five things we learnt from the Gunners' Champions League victory at the Emirates
Stuart Lancaster’s long-term deal makes sense – a rarity for a decision taken by the RFU

Lancaster’s long-term deal makes sense – a rarity for a decision taken by the RFU

This deal gives England a head-start to prepare for 2019 World Cup, says Chris Hewett
Ebola outbreak: The children orphaned by the virus – then rejected by surviving relatives over fear of infection

The children orphaned by Ebola...

... then rejected by surviving relatives over fear of infection
Pride: Are censors pandering to homophobia?

Are censors pandering to homophobia?

US film censors have ruled 'Pride' unfit for under-16s, though it contains no sex or violence