Kila v HM Prison Brixton & Anor [2004] EWHC 2824 (Admin) (02 December 2004)
The delay in extradition was not oppressive as it was not attributable to the authorities' fault, and there was no legitimate expectation that proceedings would not be pursued. Mere delay, without more, does not make extradition oppressive under section 11(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 1989.
- Citation
- [2004] EWHC 2824 (Admin)
- Parties
- Applicant: Parfait Kila; First Respondent: The Governor of HM Prison Brixton; Second Respondent: The Government of Sweden
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 02 December 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus (extradition) / Judgment on Application
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Extradition, Habeas Corpus, Delay in Extradition Proceedings, Oppression Under Extradition Act 1989
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Parfait Kila
Applicant
The Governor of HM Prison Brixton
First Respondent
The Government of Sweden
Second Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus (extradition) / Judgment on Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the delay in extradition proceedings rendered the applicant's return to Sweden unjust or oppressive under section 11(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 1989
Ratio Decidendi
The delay in extradition was not oppressive as it was not attributable to the authorities' fault, and there was no legitimate expectation that proceedings would not be pursued. Mere delay, without more, does not make extradition oppressive under section 11(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 1989.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- Application for writ of habeas corpus dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment