Sullivan v The Government of the United States of America & Anor

Sullivan v The Government of the United States of America & Anor

There is a real risk that if extradited, the appellant would be subject to an order of civil commitment in Minnesota, and such an order would constitute a flagrant denial of his rights under Article 5 ECHR, as the criteria for civil commitment fall short of the necessity of proving unsound mind required by Article 5.1(e).

Parties
Claimant: Shawn Eugene Sullivan; 1st Defendant: The Government of the United States of America; 2nd Defendant: The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / High Court Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed (no order made on s.108 appeal pending further submissions)
Legal Topics
Article 5 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Civil Commitment, Speciality Principle
Extradition Law Human Rights Law Article 5 ECHR Article 6 ECHR Civil Commitment Speciality Principle

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shawn Eugene Sullivan

Claimant

The Government of the United States of America

1st Defendant

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / High Court Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extradition to the United States would expose the appellant to a real risk of a flagrant denial of his rights under Article 5 or Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights due to the possibility of civil commitment in Minnesota.
  2. 2 Whether the process of civil commitment in Minnesota falls within the exceptions to Article 5 ECHR.
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State's order for extradition breaches the rule against speciality.

Ratio Decidendi

There is a real risk that if extradited, the appellant would be subject to an order of civil commitment in Minnesota, and such an order would constitute a flagrant denial of his rights under Article 5 ECHR, as the criteria for civil commitment fall short of the necessity of proving unsound mind required by Article 5.1(e).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (no order made on s.108 appeal pending further submissions)