Alun Jones QC successful again in Rwanda Genocide Extradition Case. In proceedings lasting two and a half years, the extradition of 5 individuals to Rwanda was rejected by District Judge Arbuthnot. Read more here.
Martin Henley has recently won two appeals in the High Court both on the grounds that the Appellant’s extradition would be disproportionate to their rights to a family life.
In Pakulski v Poland Mr Justice Mitting allowed the appeal on the basis that the Appellant, who was a recovering alcoholic had managed to rehabilitate himself over a period of 7 years in the UK by remaining sober, apart from two short relapses, rebuilding his life with his highly supportive wife and their 4 children. He had turned his life around by attending regular Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. He had also built a successful construction business employing 4 people and was of good character in the UK. The offences were of some age and were all alcohol related. His version of the chaos in his life was corroborated by the medical notes from several admissions to psychiatric clinics in Poland for treatment for alcoholism. The judge found that there was a risk that the Appellant’s rehabilitation would be put in jeopardy if he were extradited to Poland.
In Wojick v Poland Mr Justice Cranston found that the Appellant’s extradition was disproportionate because of the lengthy delay in issuing the EAW. SOCA on 18 February 2011 was informed that an EAW had been issued they responded saying that Appellant had no connection with the UK. This was incorrect because a caution from 2006 was recorded on the police national computer. It was not until 2 years later that SOCA found an address for the Appellant. SOCA’s failure to find the entry on the PNC was described by the judge as “…a pigs ear…”.
Laura Herbert successfully argues Article 8 Human Rights in Extradition request from Czech Republic.
Before Westminster Magistrates’ Court the District Judge found in favour of Ms Herbert’s arguments, holding that the Czech Republic had requested her client for a non ‘extradition offence’ and that it would be a disproportionate breach of her right to family life to extradite.
Alun Jones QC wins extradition battle for Domenico Rancadore. Read full story here
Alun Jones QC represents alleged Italian Mafia Boss, Domenico Rancadore in Extradition proceedings. Read full BBC news story here
Martin Henley and Unnati Bhatt have secured the discharge of a Polish national, wanted for various offences in Poland. He had been an officer in the Polish army and a UN peace keeper in the former Yugoslavia. In 2001 he had become acutely unwell and was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic, he may also have been suffering from PTSD as a result of his peace keeping role.
The Senior District Judge found that his extradition was oppressive by the passage of time. His strong reliance upon his partner for his immediate medical care and safeguarding his extradition would be a disproportionate interference with his right to family life. Finally the extradition would be unjust and oppressive by reason of his mental health.
Alun Jones is representing a defendant in a high profile extradition case. Read the full story on the BBC news page here
Alun Jones Q.C is appearing at the Supreme Court today on an extradition case.
Watch live here: http://news.sky.com/info/supreme-court
After extradition proceedings of 6 years, Alun Jones secured the release of Nosratollah Tajik, a former Iranian ambassador to Jordan, accused in the USA of conspiring to export night vision goggles from the USA to Iran. The High Court discharged him on 27 November 2012 on the ground of unreasonable delay by the USA and Home Office. Mr Tajik is the only Muslim to defeat a US extradition request for terrorist or political offences since the Extradition Act 2003 came into force.
Alun Jones QC writes in The Independent 11th October 2012:
Why was Abu Hamza extradited to the US for crimes he is alleged to have committed in this country? We asked, repeatedly, why no prosecution had been instituted in the UK, but were never given an answer. The position is plain. Our prosecutors say, if the Americans want to try someone, that’s fine by us. When an extradition request comes, we just defer to it. So no difficult questions are left to resolve about whether evidence obtained from a “co-operating” witness arises from unacceptable treatment, or a cooperation agreement so draconian as to amount to duress.
In extradition law, unless some abuse in the preparation of a case is obvious, the “presumption of good faith” – part of the theology of extradition law – prevents inquiry by our courts. Nearly five years ago, the US Attorney General, unusually, complained about the delay in Hamza’s case, indicating that the passage of time might fatally undermine the prosecution case. Whether the case is still triable, who knows? How is the public interest served by all this? The Home Office reaction to the final attempts by Abu Hamza, and the others whose extradition was sought by the US, was to treat this long-running blot on our system as a test of political will. Our approach should be less muscular.
If persons are accused of committing serious crimes in or from this country, we should normally try them here. That is what independent and robust criminal justice systems do. And delay will be avoided. We should not sub-contract their cases to other, more powerful states. The defence witnesses of Abu Hamza, and of Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan, accused of facilitating terrorism from their desks in London and in custody for six or seven years, live here. Their computers and documents are here. If guilty, they are a menace here. If not guilty, they should be exonerated here. The arguments for UK trials are the same as for Gary McKinnon, the Natwest Three and others whose cases, not involving terrorism, have given rise to public concern. Rumour has it that the Government may soon be susceptible to a change in the law to protect UK nationals such as Gary McKinnon. There is no reason to exclude those accused of terrorism.
Alun Jones QC represented Abu Hamza in the extradition proceedings.