Jones v Government of United States [2012] EWHC 2332 (Admin) (25 July 2012)

Jones v Government of United States [2012] EWHC 2332 (Admin) (25 July 2012)

The appeal is dismissed because the offences in the UK and US are factually and temporally distinct, negating double jeopardy; no abuse of process arises from separate prosecutions for different crimes; no evidence supports Convention rights violations; procedural rules bar revival of abandoned arguments without justification.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 2332 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Prine George Alphonso Jones; First Respondent: Government of United States; Second Respondent: Secretary of State
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / Appeal From District Judge and Secretary of State's Extradition Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Double Jeopardy, Abuse of Process, Extradition Procedure, Article 8 ECHR, Article 3 ECHR, Article 13 ECHR
Criminal Law Extradition Law Human Rights Law Double Jeopardy Abuse of Process Extradition Procedure Article 8 ECHR Article 3 ECHR +1 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prine George Alphonso Jones

Appellant

Government of United States

First Respondent

Secretary of State

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extradition is barred by double jeopardy
  2. 2 Whether extradition constitutes an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether extradition is incompatible with Convention rights (Articles 3, 8, 13)

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the offences in the UK and US are factually and temporally distinct, negating double jeopardy; no abuse of process arises from separate prosecutions for different crimes; no evidence supports Convention rights violations; procedural rules bar revival of abandoned arguments without justification.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Extradition to the United States to proceed
  • No adjournment granted