III. Extradition law aspects of pinochet 3

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 48, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 958-965

  Warbrick, Coun ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77950928598     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0020589300063788     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. [1999] 2 W.L.R. 827.
2. [1998] 3 W.L.R. 1456.
3. W.L.R.,per Lord Browne-Wilkinson, at p.836B-F.
4. G. Mullan, “The concept of Double Criminality in the Context of Extraterritorial Crimes,” (1997) Criminal Law Review 17.
5. Law Commission Report No. 91, “Territorial and Extraterritorial Extent of the Criminal Law” (1978).
6. The practice is not quite as rigid as this might suggest, exceptions being made where only one element of the offence is committed in England, so long as it is the terminatory part, e.g. R. v. Baxter [1870] 1 W.L.R. 13, some elements of offences being characterised as continuing acts, capable of being committed in more than one jurisdiction
7. e.g. R. v. Treacy [1971] A.C 537
8. and special rules applying to preparatory offences, e.g. R. v. Sansom [1991] 2 Q.B. 130.
9. Q.B., p.837.
10. In issuing his authority to proceed after the House of Lords judgment in Pinochet 1, the Home Secretary did not include charges of genocide raised by Spain, H.C Debs, Vol.322 W.A. 213–217, 9 Dec. 1998.
11. The list is taken from Lord Hope's judgment in Pinochet 3, W.A., p.868B-C.
12. W.A., pp.836F-839H.
13. W.A.,p.l481.
14. W.A., p.838E-H.
15. Idem, p.838H.
16. See also R. v. Home Secretary, ex parte Gilmore [1998] 2 W.L.R. 618.
17. W.L.R., p.839F.
18. Idem, pp.869E-879E.
19. Idem, p.871G.
20. Idem, p.872D.
21. Idem, p.873C.
22. Idem, p.873H.
23. Idem,p.874C.
24. Idem, p 874H.
25. These are adapted from a less than clear statement by Lord Hope Idem, p.897F-G.
26. (1999) 48 I.C.L.Q. 687.
27. Trendtex Trading Corporation v. Central Bank of Nigeria [1977] Q.B. 529.
28. Q.B., p.912B.
29. Q.B., p.l473C.