QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
GOVERNMENT OF GERMANY |
Appellant Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
ROLAND KLEINSCHMIDT AND LAURA DEWAR |
Respondents Defendants |
____________________
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Miss C Lloyd-Jacob (instructed by Whitelock & Storr) for the Respondents
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Beatson J :
(a) the documents referred to in section 70(9),
(b) particulars of the person whose extradition is requested,
(c) particulars of the offence specified in the request,
(d) in the case of a person accused of an offence, a warrant for his arrest issued in the category 2 territory",
and one other requirement not relevant in the present case. One of the curiosities of the statute is that although the judge's power to fix the date of the hearing depends on his receipt of the documents referred to in section 70(9) at this stage of the extradition hearing he is required by section 78(2)(a) to decide whether the documents sent to him by the Secretary of State consist of or include the documents referred to in section 70(9). Be that as it may, if the judge decides that the documents sent to him do consist of the specified documents, by section 78(4) he must decide whether inter alia "(c) copies of the documents sent to the Judge by the Secretary of State have been served on the person" appearing or brought before him. By section 78(6) if the Judge "decides any of the questions in subsection (4) in the negative he must order the person's discharge".
"Throughout extradition law there are two principal threads. First, in exercising powers of extradition courts of law must … be vigilant to protect individuals from the overreaching of their rights by the government. Justice to the individual is always of supreme importance. Secondly, the Board considers that it is imperative of legal policy that extradition law must, wherever possible, be made to work effectively."
"extradition statutes, ought … to be accorded a broad and generous construction so far as the text permits it in order to facilitate extradition".
In that case the context differed. The House of Lords was considering whether a person was "accused" of an extraditable offence within section 1(1) of the Extradition Act 1989. Lord Steyn stated that a purposive interpretation of "accused", also described by him as a "cosmopolitan approach", ought to be adopted in order to accommodate the differences between criminal procedures in the United Kingdom and in civil law jurisdictions. In that context such an approach is particularly appropriate. But Cartwright v Superintendent of Her Majesty's Prison was not such a case. The majority of the Board relied on the statement in Re Ismail, and there is no indication that the broad and purposive construction of extradition statutes is only to be used in the circumstances of Re Ismail.
Lord Justice Sedley: