Stepp v Government of the United States of America & Anor [2006] EWHC 1033 (Admin) (11 May 2006)

Stepp v Government of the United States of America & Anor [2006] EWHC 1033 (Admin) (11 May 2006)

There was no credible evidence of bad faith or fabrication by US authorities; the District Judge did not err in fact or law. Specialty arrangements between the UK and US satisfy s.95 of the Extradition Act 2003, regardless of whether the individual has standing to raise specialty in US courts. The Secretary of State was entitled to order extradition. Both appeals are dismissed.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 1033 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Brian Stepp; 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
11 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / High Court Appeal Against District Judge and Secretary of State Decisions
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extradition Act 2003, Specialty Principle, Abuse of Process, European Convention on Human Rights, Standing to Raise Specialty, Good Faith in Extradition, International Treaties
Extradition Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Extradition Act 2003 Specialty Principle Abuse of Process European Convention on Human Rights Standing to Raise Specialty +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Stepp

Appellant

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 Against District Judge and Secretary of State Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extradition request was made in bad faith or in violation of ECHR rights
  2. 2 Whether the District Judge erred in fact or law in sending the case to the Secretary of State
  3. 3 Whether the Secretary of State erred in ordering extradition in the absence of effective specialty arrangements under s.95 Extradition Act 2003

Ratio Decidendi

There was no credible evidence of bad faith or fabrication by US authorities; the District Judge did not err in fact or law. Specialty arrangements between the UK and US satisfy s.95 of the Extradition Act 2003, regardless of whether the individual has standing to raise specialty in US courts. The Secretary of State was entitled to order extradition. Both appeals are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Both appeals (against District Judge and Secretary of State) dismissed
  • Extradition order stands