Patel v S (A101/2014) [2015] ZAGPJHC 188; [2015] 4 All SA 382 (GJ); 2016 (2) SACR 141 (GJ) (18 August 2015)

Patel v S (A101/2014) [2015] ZAGPJHC 188; [2015] 4 All SA 382 (GJ); 2016 (2) SACR 141 (GJ) (18 August 2015)

The court held that the principle of double criminality, as expressed in both the Extradition Act and the RSA-USA Extradition Treaty, does not require that the conduct be an offence in South Africa at the time of its commission in the foreign state, but rather at the time of the extradition request. The relevant provisions of FICA were in force at the time of the request, satisfying the requirement. The certificate from the US Prosecuting Authority, although not using the exact wording of section 10(2), was sufficient in substance and adequately described the offences. The magistrate was correct in finding the appellant liable to be surrendered and in accepting the certificate as...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 188
Parties
Appellant: Usman Ismail Patel; Respondent: State
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 August 2015
Case Number
A101/2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Committal Order for Extradition Under Extradition Act
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; committal order confirmed.
Judges
P Coppin, T D Vilakazi
Legal Topics
Extradition, Double Criminality, Extradition Treaty, Financial Crimes, Certificate of Evidence, Principle of Speciality
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Public International Law Extradition Double Criminality Extradition Treaty Financial Crimes Certificate of Evidence +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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Usman Ismail Patel

Appellant

State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Committal Order for Extradition Under Extradition Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the offences for which extradition is sought are extraditable offences under South African law and the treaty.
  2. 2 Whether the double criminality principle is satisfied given the timing of the relevant South African legislation.
  3. 3 Whether the certificate furnished by the US Prosecuting Authority complies with section 10(2) of the Extradition Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the principle of double criminality, as expressed in both the Extradition Act and the RSA-USA Extradition Treaty, does not require that the conduct be an offence in South Africa at the time of its commission in the foreign state, but rather at the time of the extradition request. The relevant provisions of FICA were in force at the time of the request, satisfying the requirement. The certificate from the US Prosecuting Authority, although not using the exact wording of section 10(2), was sufficient in substance and adequately described the offences. The magistrate was correct in finding the appellant liable to be surrendered and in accepting the certificate as...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; committal order confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The order of the magistrate made in terms of section 10(1) of the Extradition Act, No. 67 of 1962, is confirmed.