Tudor v United Arab Emirates [2012] EWHC 1098 (Admin) (13 March 2012)
The statements in question satisfy the criteria of Section 84 of the Extradition Act 2003; Marin was a competent witness at the putative summary trial, and the evidence as a whole, including corroboration from other witnesses, establishes a case to answer. The appeal is dismissed.
- Citation
- [2012] EWHC 1098 (Admin)
- Parties
- Claimant: Tudor; Defendant: United Arab Emirates
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 13 March 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Extradition Appeal / High Court (divisional Court) Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Extradition Procedure, Admissibility of Evidence, Hearsay Evidence, Competency of Witnesses, Prima Facie Case, Section 84 Extradition Act 2003
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Tudor
Claimant
United Arab Emirates
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal / High Court (divisional Court) Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the records of interview are admissible as evidence under Section 84(2) of the Extradition Act 2003
- 2 Whether the evidence is sufficient to make a case requiring an answer by the appellant under Section 84(1)
- 3 Whether the use of hearsay evidence infringes the right to a fair trial
Ratio Decidendi
The statements in question satisfy the criteria of Section 84 of the Extradition Act 2003; Marin was a competent witness at the putative summary trial, and the evidence as a whole, including corroboration from other witnesses, establishes a case to answer. The appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Extradition of the appellant to the United Arab Emirates is upheld
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