Mustafa (Hamza) v The United States of America & Anor

Mustafa (Hamza) v The United States of America & Anor

There was no evidence that the extradition request or the evidence to be used at trial was tainted by torture or ill-treatment; the appellant's health and family circumstances did not reach the threshold for barring extradition under Articles 3 or 8 ECHR; any delay was justified and did not render extradition unjust or oppressive; diplomatic assurances from the USA were sufficient and reliable; therefore, the extradition order was properly made and the appeals were dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Mustafa Kamel Mustafa (Otherwise Abu Hamza); First Respondent: The Government of the United States of America; Second Respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Appeal From District Judge and Secretary of State's Extradition Order
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Evidence Obtained by Torture, Delay in Prosecution, Article 3 ECHR, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Diplomatic Assurances, Supermax Prison Conditions
Extradition Law Human Rights Law Criminal Law Abuse of Process Evidence Obtained by Torture Delay in Prosecution Article 3 ECHR Article 6 ECHR +3 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mustafa Kamel Mustafa (Otherwise Abu Hamza)

Appellant

The Government of the United States of America

First Respondent

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Appeal / Appeal From District Judge and Secretary of State's Extradition Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extradition would be an abuse of process due to alleged use of evidence obtained by torture
  2. 2 Whether extradition would violate Articles 3, 6, or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  3. 3 Whether delay in prosecution renders extradition unjust or oppressive

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that the extradition request or the evidence to be used at trial was tainted by torture or ill-treatment; the appellant's health and family circumstances did not reach the threshold for barring extradition under Articles 3 or 8 ECHR; any delay was justified and did not render extradition unjust or oppressive; diplomatic assurances from the USA were sufficient and reliable; therefore, the extradition order was properly made and the appeals were dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Both appeals dismissed; extradition order upheld.