Judicial jurisdiction and abuse of process

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 49, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 489-496

  Warbrick, Colin ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845635840     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0020589300064265     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. For example, Sinclair v. HM Advocate (1890) 17 R.(J.) 38
2. R. v. Officer Commanding Depot Battalion, RASC Colchester, ex p. Elliott [1949] 1 All E.R. 138.
3. R. v. Bow Street Magistrates, ex p. Mackeson 75 Cr.App.R. 24.
4. R. v. Plymouth Justices, ex p. Driver [1985] 2 All E.R. 681.
5. R. v. Horseferry Road Magistrates' Court, ex p. Bennett [1993] 3 All E.R. 138.
6. For example, United States v. Alvarez-Machin 504 US 655 (1995).
7. For example, S v. Ebrahim 1991 (2) SA 553
8. on which see Dugard, “No Jurisdiction over Abducted Persons in Roman-Dutch Law: Male Captus, Male Detentus” (1991) 7 South African Journal of Human Rights 199.
9. For an extensive survey of the case-law, see G. Gilbert, Transnational Fugitive Offenders in International Law (1998), pp.337–377.
10. Joffe v. Smith 825 F.2d 304.
11. On refusal of entry, leading to return, see Gilbert, above n.6, pp.364–365.
12. In general, see Andrew Choo, Abuse of Process and Judicial Slays of Criminal Proceedings (1993); in the present context, pp.78–87. Choo, at p.185, favours a principle which acknowledges the injury to the defendant, rather than one which penalises the errant executive.
13. Choo, “International Kidnapping, Disguised Extradition and Abuse of Process” (1994) 57 Modern Law Review 626, at 632–633, says that Lord Griffiths puts forward a non-discretionary view of abuse of process.
14. Bennett, above n.4, p,150f.
15. Idem, p.l55g.
16. Idem, p.l61d.
17. Idem, p.l63h.
18. Idem, p.l64f.
19. Choo, above n.10, p.635.
20. Bennett v. HM Advocate 1995 S.L.T. 510 (afterwards, Bennett (Sc)).
21. Idem, pp.517K-518H.
22. R. v. Staines Magistrates' Court and others, ex p. Westfallen, idem
23. ex p. Soper, R. v. Swindon Magistrates' Court and others, ex p. Nangle [1998] 4 A11 E.R. 210.
24. R. v. Mullen [1999] 3 W.L.R. 777.
25. Westfallen, above n.19, p.222f.
26. Idem, p 222h.
27. Idem, p.224f.
28. Mullen, above n.20, p.780H. The authorities were highly conscious of Mackeson, above n.2, which coincidentally also concerned a return from Zimbabwe.
29. R. v. Latif [1996] 1 All E.R. 353.
30. Idem, p 361b,d.
31. Mullen, above n.20, p.789d.
32. On the face of it, this seems a plausible conclusion but it must be remembered that the rights of persons involved in extradition and deportation processes are only superficially protected in human rights law, certainly not by the full fair trial rights, though it has been argued that they should be, Van den Wyngaert, “Applying the European Convention on Human Rights to Extradition: Opening Pandora's Box?” (1990) 39 I.CL.Q. 757,775–776.
33. Mullen, above n.20, p.790f.
34. Idem, p.790f.
35. Idem, p.517H.
36. Mullen, above n.20, p.789D-E.
37. As Professor Gilmore's note on Charrington shows, above pp.477–489.
38. Bozano v. France E.CH.R. A/111 (1986).
39. Bozano v. Italy App. No.9991/82, 39 D.R. 147.
40. Altmann v. France App. No.10689/83, 37 D.R. 225.
41. Stocke v. Germany App. No.1 1755/85, Report, paras.166–169.
42. Stocke v. Germany ECH.R. A/199 (1991), para.54
43. See also Sanchez-Ramirez v. France App. No.28780/95,86-B D.R. 155.
44. Saunders v. UK E.Ct.H.R. Rep. 1996-VI 2044,23
45. E.H.R.R. 313.
46. Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal E.Ct.H.R. Rep. 1998-IV 1451, paras.38–39.