Kila v HM Prison Brixton & Anor

Kila v HM Prison Brixton & Anor

The passage of time and delay by Swedish authorities did not render the applicant's extradition oppressive or unjust under section 11(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 1989. There was no evidence of oppression beyond mere delay, and the authorities acted reasonably once the applicant's location was known.

Parties
Applicant: Parfait Kila; First Respondent: Governor of HM Prison Brixton; Second Respondent: Government of Sweden
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Habeas Corpus (extradition) / Judgment on Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extradition, Delay in Extradition Proceedings, Oppression Under Extradition Act, Passage of Time as Bar to Extradition
Criminal Law Extradition Law Extradition Delay in Extradition Proceedings Oppression Under Extradition Act Passage of Time as Bar to Extradition

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Parfait Kila

Applicant

Governor of HM Prison Brixton

First Respondent

Government of Sweden

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Habeas Corpus (extradition) / Judgment on Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the passage of time since conviction and delay by Swedish authorities renders extradition unjust or oppressive under section 11(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 1989
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the requesting state (Sweden) in delaying extradition proceedings bars extradition

Ratio Decidendi

The passage of time and delay by Swedish authorities did not render the applicant's extradition oppressive or unjust under section 11(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 1989. There was no evidence of oppression beyond mere delay, and the authorities acted reasonably once the applicant's location was known.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for writ of habeas corpus dismissed