Akyol v DPP Zwolle Lelystad Netherlands

Akyol v DPP Zwolle Lelystad Netherlands

Mr Kaya knew from 1996 that the Dutch authorities were seeking him to enforce his sentence and took steps to avoid arrest; therefore, he cannot rely on the passage of time to resist extradition, and his personal circumstances do not render extradition oppressive.

Parties
Claimant: Metin Kaya (AKYOL); Defendant: DPP Zwolle Lelystad Netherlands
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Appeal From Decision of District Judge Ordering Extradition
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Passage of Time, Oppression, Abuse of Process, European Arrest Warrant
Criminal Law Extradition Passage of Time Oppression Abuse of Process European Arrest Warrant

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Metin Kaya (AKYOL)

Claimant

DPP Zwolle Lelystad Netherlands

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Appeal From Decision of District Judge Ordering Extradition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the passage of time made extradition oppressive under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003
  2. 2 Whether the appellant evaded arrest and could rely on the passage of time
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's personal circumstances rendered extradition oppressive

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Kaya knew from 1996 that the Dutch authorities were seeking him to enforce his sentence and took steps to avoid arrest; therefore, he cannot rely on the passage of time to resist extradition, and his personal circumstances do not render extradition oppressive.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Extradition order upheld
  • Detailed assessment of costs for publicly funded counsel