McCaughey v United States of America & Anor [2006] EWHC 248 (Admin) (20 January 2006)

McCaughey v United States of America & Anor [2006] EWHC 248 (Admin) (20 January 2006)

The District Judge was entitled to conclude, on the medical evidence and in light of the US authorities' assurances, that extradition would not be unjust, oppressive, or in breach of Article 3 ECHR. The procedural failure to notify of appeal rights did not vitiate the order as the claimant was represented and exercised his right to appeal.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 248 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Samuel Scott McCaughey; First Respondent: The Government of the United States of America; Second Respondent: The Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 January 2006
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / High Court Appeal From District Judge's Extradition Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extradition Act 2003, Article 3 ECHR, Procedural Fairness, Medical Grounds for Resisting Extradition
Extradition Human Rights Criminal Law Extradition Act 2003 Article 3 ECHR Procedural Fairness Medical Grounds for Resisting Extradition

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Scott McCaughey

Claimant

The Government of the United States of America

First Respondent

The Secretary of State for the Home Department

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / High Court Appeal From District Judge's Extradition Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive due to the claimant's medical condition under section 91 Extradition Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether extradition would breach Article 3 ECHR due to risk to health
  3. 3 Whether procedural impropriety (failure to notify right of appeal) vitiated the extradition order

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge was entitled to conclude, on the medical evidence and in light of the US authorities' assurances, that extradition would not be unjust, oppressive, or in breach of Article 3 ECHR. The procedural failure to notify of appeal rights did not vitiate the order as the claimant was represented and exercised his right to appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; extradition order stands
  • Claimant permitted to submit application for certificate of public importance within seven days