De Figueiredo v Australia [2010] JLR 600 (03 November 2010)

De Figueiredo v Australia [2010] JLR 600 (03 November 2010)

The court may consider the reality of the situation and accept additional evidence, even if post-dating the extradition order, to satisfy the specialty requirement under art. 32. Arrangements comply if the extradition offence is defined according to foreign law but is essentially the same as in Jersey, or if the court is otherwise satisfied as to specialty.

Citation
[2010] JLR 600
Parties
Applicant: De Figueiredo; Respondent: Australia
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
03 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Extradition / Judgment
Outcome
extradition arrangements upheld
Legal Topics
Specialty Principle, Extradition Certificate, Extradition (jersey) Law 2004
Criminal Law Extradition Law Specialty Principle Extradition Certificate Extradition (jersey) Law 2004

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

De Figueiredo

Applicant

Australia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Extradition / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the specialty requirement under Extradition (Jersey) Law 2004, art. 32 was satisfied in the extradition to Australia
  2. 2 Whether errors in the wording of the certificate under art. 32(6) invalidate the extradition process

Ratio Decidendi

The court may consider the reality of the situation and accept additional evidence, even if post-dating the extradition order, to satisfy the specialty requirement under art. 32. Arrangements comply if the extradition offence is defined according to foreign law but is essentially the same as in Jersey, or if the court is otherwise satisfied as to specialty.

Court Disposition

extradition arrangements upheld