R. v. Hulley

R. v. Hulley

The application for a stay of extradition was dismissed: the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that Canadian officials were complicit in any unlawful abduction by U.S. bounty hunters, and the prosecutorial communications in the U.S. lacked the necessary nexus to the extradition hearing to warrant a stay; issues about potential unfairness of trial or sentence abroad properly fall to ministerial consideration under the Extradition Act (s.44).

Citation
2006 BCSC 907
Parties
Requesting State: Attorney-General of Canada on behalf of the United States of America; Person Sought: Dwayne Gregory Lee Hulley
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Extradition / Application for a Stay of Extradition Proceedings at Extradition/committal Hearing
Outcome
Applicant's application for a judicial stay of extradition proceedings dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Section 7 Charter (fundamental Justice), Complicity/abetting (s.21 Criminal Code), Bounty Hunters/cross Border Abduction, Disclosure Obligations, Ministerial Discretion Under Extradition Act S.44 and S.40(4], Committal Vs Ministerial Submissions
Source Language
English
Extradition Criminal Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law International Law Abuse of Process Section 7 Charter (fundamental Justice) Complicity/abetting (s.21 Criminal Code) +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney-General of Canada on behalf of the United States of America

Requesting State

Dwayne Gregory Lee Hulley

Person Sought

Procedural Posture

Extradition / Application for a Stay of Extradition Proceedings at Extradition/committal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Canadian officials were complicit in an attempted unlawful abduction by U.S. bounty hunters such that a stay for abuse of process or s.7 violation is required
  2. 2 Whether prosecutorial communications from the requesting state (threats of enhanced charges/sentences) so taint the extradition hearing that a stay is required
  3. 3 Whether issues regarding potential unfairness of trial/sentence abroad fall to the extradition judge or to the Minister under the Extradition Act (s.44)

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a stay of extradition was dismissed: the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that Canadian officials were complicit in any unlawful abduction by U.S. bounty hunters, and the prosecutorial communications in the U.S. lacked the necessary nexus to the extradition hearing to warrant a stay; issues about potential unfairness of trial or sentence abroad properly fall to ministerial consideration under the Extradition Act (s.44).

Court Disposition

Applicant's application for a judicial stay of extradition proceedings dismissed

Orders

  • Application for a judicial stay of extradition proceedings dismissed