Extradition (to U.S.)

AuthorInternational Law Group, PLLC
Pages165-170

Page 165

In 2004, the United States government asked the United Kingdom to extradite Ian Norris (Respondent), a British citizen, to stand trial on a federal grand jury indictment containing four counts. Respondent is a former CEO of a prominent international maker of carbon products.

The first charge was that the Respondent had conspired with other producers of carbon products to run a price fixing agreement or cartel in several countries including the United States. Counts 2 to 4 alleged a conspiracy to obstruct justice by tampering with witnesses and by causing a person to alter, destroy, mutilate or conceal various documents with intent to make them unavailable for use in an official proceeding.

The following year, British authorities arrested the Respondent in England and the U.S. filed extradition proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench (QB). The QB held that the offenses described in the extradition request constituted extraditable crimes for the purposes of the treaty between the U.S. and the U.K. [see Extradition

Page 166

Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, U.S.-U.K, Mar. 31, 2003, S. TREATY DOC. NO, 108-23; as amended Dec. 16, 2004; in force April 26, 2007]. Respondent appealed.

The main issues raised by his appeal relate to the proper approach that the English courts should take where Respondent contends that extradition will interfere with his rights to respect for his private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms [312 U.N.T.S. 221; E.T.S. 5; plus modifying Protocols]; from Barry E. Carter, 2010 Selected Documents of International Law at 512 [Convention].

Article 8 provides that: "1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

The QB dismissed the Respondent's appeal against that decision. A panel of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, however, granted leave to appeal to the full Court. It agreed that the price-fixing conduct would not, if committed in England and Wales at the relevant time, have constituted an offense known to English law and so was not capable of constituting an extraditable offence. The Supreme Court remitted the determination of the remaining issues raised by Respondent back to the lower court.

At that hearing, Respondent contended that the ill-health of both him and his wife, who were then aged 65 and 64 respectively, their mutual dependency based on a long and close marriage, and the effect that his extradition would have on his wife's depressive illness, made the interference with their family rights under Article 8 of the Convention disproportionate to the public interest in his extradition for charges subsidiary to the main cartel charge.

The QB rejected that submission and, pursuant to the 2003 Extradition Act, sent the case to the Home Secretary, who ordered the Respondent's extradition. The Divisional Court dismissed the Respondent's appeal against those decisions. The case again came before the full Supreme Court. That Court again dismisses Respondent's appeal.

The Court held that there could be no absolute rule that any interference with Article 8 rights as a result of extradition would be enough. There was a compelling public interest in extradition as part of the process for ensuring the prevention of disorder and crime. Since the probability of some degree of interference with family life was inherent in the process of international extradition, the results of this interference with those rights had to be highly serious before they could outweigh the public interest in giving effect to requests for extradition. It would have to make the extradition of the individual disproportionate. When considering the proportionality of a particular extradition, the judge could take into account the relative gravity of the offense and the effect of extradition on members of the extraditee's family.

The charges of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT