Klimento v Westminster Magistrates' Court [2012] EWHC 1616 (Admin) (30 May 2012)

The District Judge's decision of 16 April 2012 to rescind the extradition order and set aside the consent procedure was quashed as unlawful, and the original extradition order following consent was reinstated.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2012] EWHC 1616 (Admin)
Parties: Claimant: Klimento; Defendant: Westminster Magistrates' Court; Interested Party: Crown Prosecution Service
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 30 May 2012
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash District Judge's Decision
Outcome: Application allowed; District Judge's decision quashed; original extradition order reinstated.
Legal Topics: Extradition Order, Consent Procedure, Judicial Review of Magistrates' Decisions

Extradition Criminal Law Extradition Order Consent Procedure Judicial Review of Magistrates' Decisions

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Klimento

Claimant

Westminster Magistrates' Court

Defendant

Crown Prosecution Service

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash District Judge's Decision

Legal Issues

1 Whether the District Judge's decision to rescind the extradition order was lawful
2 Whether the consent procedure could be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application allowed; District Judge's decision quashed; original extradition order reinstated.

Orders

District Judge's decision of 16 April 2012 quashed
Order setting aside consent procedure quashed

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.