United Kingdom v. Aziz

United Kingdom v. Aziz

Application to adduce evidence under s.32(1)(c) dismissed because the proffered affidavits and documents constituted exculpatory defence evidence that did not impeach the reliability or sufficiency of the Record of the Case; the committal judge may not admit evidence that requires choosing between competing inferences or assessing credibility – Ferras permits only a limited weighing of the ROC's circumstantial evidence and does not convert an extradition hearing into a trial.

Citation
2012 BCSC 40
Parties
Requesting State: The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; Person Sought: Mahmood Sheraly Aziz (aka Mahmoud Sheraly Aziz)
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 January 2012
Procedural Posture
Extradition / Committal Hearing Under S.29(1); Application to Adduce Evidence Under S.32(1)(c)
Outcome
Application to adduce evidence pursuant to s.32(1)(c) denied.
Legal Topics
Committal, Possession of Stolen Property, Admissibility of Defence Evidence, Circumstantial Evidence, Limited Weighing of Evidence
Source Language
English
Extradition Criminal Law Evidence Committal Possession of Stolen Property Admissibility of Defence Evidence Circumstantial Evidence Limited Weighing of Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Requesting State

Mahmood Sheraly Aziz (aka Mahmoud Sheraly Aziz)

Person Sought

Procedural Posture

Extradition / Committal Hearing Under S.29(1); Application to Adduce Evidence Under S.32(1)(c)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the person sought may adduce defence evidence under s.32(1)(c) that provides an innocent explanation for facts in the Record of the Case
  2. 2 Whether the committal judge may weigh competing inferences of guilt and innocence where prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence
  3. 3 Whether the defence evidence attacks reliability of the ROC or merely offers exculpatory explanations

Ratio Decidendi

Application to adduce evidence under s.32(1)(c) dismissed because the proffered affidavits and documents constituted exculpatory defence evidence that did not impeach the reliability or sufficiency of the Record of the Case; the committal judge may not admit evidence that requires choosing between competing inferences or assessing credibility – Ferras permits only a limited weighing of the ROC's circumstantial evidence and does not convert an extradition hearing into a trial.

Court Disposition

Application to adduce evidence pursuant to s.32(1)(c) denied.

Orders

  • Leave to adduce evidence under s.32(1)(c) of the Extradition Act is refused.