Sullivan v The Government of the United States of America & Anor [2012] EWHC 1680 (Admin) (20 June 2012)

Sullivan v The Government of the United States of America & Anor [2012] EWHC 1680 (Admin) (20 June 2012)

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

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1680 (Admin)
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 / Appeal Against Extradition Order and Secretary of State's Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed (no order made pending further argument on disposal)
Legal Topics
Extradition, Article 5 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Civil Commitment, Speciality Principle
Extradition Law Human Rights Law Extradition 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 / Appeal Against Extradition Order and Secretary of State's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extradition to the United States would expose the appellant to a real risk of civil commitment in Minnesota
  2. 2 Whether such civil commitment would amount to a flagrant denial of rights under Article 5 ECHR (right to liberty)
  3. 3 Whether there would be a flagrant denial of rights under Article 6 ECHR (right to a fair trial)

Ratio Decidendi

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

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (no order made pending further argument on disposal)