Attorney General -v- Pratkunas [2007] IEHC 418 (28 November 2007)

Attorney General -v- Pratkunas [2007] IEHC 418 (28 November 2007)

The applicant has satisfied all statutory requirements for extradition under the Extradition Act 1965 as amended. The respondent has not provided credible or corroborated evidence of a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or unfair trial upon extradition. The alleged retrospective application of criminal law is unfounded as the amendment only reduced the penalty. Extradition is therefore ordered.

Citation
[2007] IEHC 418
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Ludmilla Borisnova Pratkunas
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Extradition Application / Judgment on Application for Extradition Order
Outcome
Extradition ordered
Legal Topics
Extradition Procedure, Correspondence of Offences, Prohibition of Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, Retrospective Criminal Law, Fair Trial Rights
Criminal Law Extradition Law Human Rights Law Extradition Procedure Correspondence of Offences Prohibition of Inhuman or Degrading Treatment Retrospective Criminal Law Fair Trial Rights

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Ludmilla Borisnova Pratkunas

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition Application / Judgment on Application for Extradition Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requirements for extradition under the Extradition Act 1965 as amended are satisfied
  2. 2 Whether extradition is prohibited due to risk of inhuman or degrading treatment
  3. 3 Whether extradition is prohibited due to risk of unfair trial

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant has satisfied all statutory requirements for extradition under the Extradition Act 1965 as amended. The respondent has not provided credible or corroborated evidence of a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or unfair trial upon extradition. The alleged retrospective application of criminal law is unfounded as the amendment only reduced the penalty. Extradition is therefore ordered.

Court Disposition

Extradition ordered

Orders

  • Respondent committed to await Minister's order for extradition to Russian Federation