Practice and Procedure

R (on the application of BERMINGHAM & ORS) (Claimants) v DIRECTOR OF THE SERIOUS FRAUD OFFICE (Respondent) & (1) ATTORNEY-GENERAL (2) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Interested Parties) : BERMINGHAM & ORS v (1) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

PUBLISHED February 28, 2006
SHARE

Although the judge conducting an extradition hearing under the Extradition Act 2003 possessed an implied jurisdiction to hold that the prosecutor was abusing the process of the court, no finding of abuse could be justified (in a case where the category 2 territory had been designated for the purpose of s.84 of the 2003 Act) by the prosecutor's refusal or failure to disclose evidential material beyond what was contained in the extradition request, since under the statutory scheme the prosecutor did not have to establish a case to answer.

[2006] EWHC 200 (Admin)

CATEGORIES