Saifi v. The Governor of Brixton Prison & The Union of India [2000] EWHC QB 33 (21st December, 2000)

Saifi v. The Governor of Brixton Prison & The Union of India [2000] EWHC QB 33 (21st December, 2000)

The court held that the English-language deposition of Ali Shaikh was inadmissible in extradition proceedings as it was not the witness's own evidence but an unchallengeable translation, and thus did not comply with the substantive rules of evidence required by s27 Extradition Act 1989. Consequently, the evidence relied on by the requesting state was inadmissible, and the committal for extradition could not stand.

Citation
[2000] EWHC QB 33
Parties
Applicant: Nadeem Akhtar Saifi; 1st Respondent: The Governor of Brixton Prison; 2nd Respondent: The Union of India
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Application for Habeas Corpus / Extradition / High Court (queen's Bench Divisional Court) Judgment on Application for Habeas Corpus and Challenge to Committal for Extradition
Outcome
Application for habeas corpus granted; committal for extradition quashed.
Legal Topics
Extradition Proceedings, Admissibility of Evidence, Hearsay, Section 78 PACE, Section 27 Extradition Act 1989, Good Faith in Prosecution, Religious Discrimination, Human Rights Act 1998
Criminal Law Extradition Law Human Rights Law Extradition Proceedings Admissibility of Evidence Hearsay Section 78 PACE Section 27 Extradition Act 1989 +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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nadeem Akhtar Saifi

Applicant

The Governor of Brixton Prison

1st Respondent

The Union of India

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Habeas Corpus / Extradition / High Court (queen's Bench Divisional Court) Judgment on Application for Habeas Corpus and Challenge to Committal for Extradition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence translated from Hindi to English and authenticated under s27 Extradition Act 1989 is admissible in extradition proceedings
  2. 2 Whether evidence should be excluded under s78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 due to alleged unfairness or coercion
  3. 3 Whether there is sufficient evidence to justify committal for extradition

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the English-language deposition of Ali Shaikh was inadmissible in extradition proceedings as it was not the witness's own evidence but an unchallengeable translation, and thus did not comply with the substantive rules of evidence required by s27 Extradition Act 1989. Consequently, the evidence relied on by the requesting state was inadmissible, and the committal for extradition could not stand.

Court Disposition

Application for habeas corpus granted; committal for extradition quashed.

Orders

  • Applicant to be discharged from custody; extradition order set aside.