Al-Fawwaz et al., Re, (2001) 282 N.R. 139 (HL)

• Case Date: December 17, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 282 N.R. 139 (HL)

Al-Fawwaz, Re (2001), 282 N.R. 139 (HL)

MLB headnote and full text

In Re Al-Fawwaz (appellant) (application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus) (on appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division)

In Re Abdel Bary (appellant) (application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus) (on appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division)

In Re Eidarous (appellant) (application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus) (on appeal from a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division)

([2001] UKHL 69)

Indexed As: Al-Fawwaz et al., Re

House of Lords

London, England

Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Hutton, Lord Millett, Lord Scott of Foscote and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

December 17, 2001.

Summary:

These appeals arose from a request by the United States to extradite three accused from the United Kingdom to face charges of conspiring with Osama bin Laden et al. by agreeing to murder, bomb and kill United States citizens and charges relating to the bombing of United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania where a large number of people were killed. The principal question which arose was whether the extradition arrangements between the United States and the United Kingdom required the extradition crime to be committed within the territory of the United States of America, or whether it was sufficient that the offence for which extradition was sought was triable in the United States of America and would be triable in England if the accused had been charged there.

The House of Lords held that it was not necessary to show that the crime was com­mitted within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

Extradition - Topic 7.1

General - Territorial jurisdiction of extra­dition crime - These appeals arose from a request by the United States to extradite three accused from the United Kingdom to face charges of conspiring with Osama bin Laden et al. by agreeing to murder, bomb and kill United States citizens and charges relating to the bombing of United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania where a large number of people were killed - An issue arose respecting whether the extradi­tion arrangements between the United States and the United Kingdom required the extradition crime to be committed within the territory of the United States, or whether it was sufficient that the offence for which extradition was sought was triable in the United States of America and would be triable in England if the accused had been charged there - The House of Lords held that it was not necessary to support the extradition claim to show that the crime was committed within the terri­torial jurisdiction of the United States.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Rees, [1986] A.C. 937 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 18, 70, 143].

Rees, Re - see R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department; Ex parte Rees.

R. v. Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Schtraks, [1964] A.C. 556 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 18, 70, 143].

Schtraks v. Government of Isreal - see R. v. Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Schtraks.

Nagdhi, Re, [1990] 1 W.L.R. 317 (D.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

Kossekechatko v. Attorney-General for Trinidad, [1932] A.C. 78 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Governor of Brixton Prison; Ex parte Minervini, [1959] 1 Q.B. 155 (D.C.), refd to. [paras. 22, 138].

R. v. Lavaudier (1881), 15 Cox C.C. 329 (D.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Tivnan, Re (1864), 5 B. & S. 645; 122 E.R. 971 (D.C.), refd to. [paras. 24, 59, 116].

Belgium v. Postlethwaite et al., [1988] A.C. 924; 80 N.R. 369 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 39, 64, 102, 116].

R. v. Governor of Ashford Remand Centre; Ex parte Postlethwaite - see Belgium v. Postlethwaite et al.

United States of America et al. v. Liangsiriprasert, [1991] 1 A.C. 225; 113 N.R. 208 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 40, 64, 105, 157].

R. v. Taylor (G.), The Times, August 17, 1994 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 44, 82, 164].

Doorson v. Netherlands (1996), 32 E.H.R.R. 330 (E.C.H.R.), refd to. [paras. 44, 165].

MacLeod v. Attorney-General for New South Wales, [1891] A.C. 455 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 52, 102].

Arton (No. 2), Re, [1896] 1 Q.B. 509 (D.C.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Governor of Pentonville Prison; Ex parte Sinclair, [1991] 2 A.C. 64 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Director of Public Prosecutions; Ex parte Sinclair - see R. v. Governor of Pentonville Prison; Ex parte Sinclair.

R. v. Governor of Pentonville Prison; Ex parte Osman, [1990] 1 W.L.R. 277 (D.C.), refd to. [paras. 76, 108, 154].

R. v. D.J.X.; R. v. S.C.Y.; R. v. G.C.Z. (1989), 91 Cr. App. R. 36 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Watford Magistrates Court; Ex parte Lenman, [1993] Crim. L.R. 388 (D.C.), refd to. [para. 84].

Kirkwood v. United Kingdom (1984), 37 D.R. 158 (E.C.H.R.), refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. United States Government; Ex parte Blair, The Times, June 21, 1985 (D.C.), refd to. [para. 89].

Rey v. Government of Switzerland, [1999] 1 A.C. 54 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 90, 171].

R. v. Governor of Pentonville Prison; Ex parte Tarling (1978), 70 Cr. App. R. 77 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 108, 154].

Tarling v. Government of the Republic of Singapore - see R. v. Governor of Pentonville Prison; Ex parte Tarling.

Soering v. United Kingdom (1989), 11 E.H.R.R. 439, refd to. [para. 121].

R. v. Governor of Pentonville Prison; Ex parte Sotiriadis, [1975] A.C. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 127].

Government of the Federal Republic of Germany v. Sotiriadis - see R. v. Gov­ernor of Pentonville Prison; Ex parte Sotiriadis.

Nielsen, Re, [1984] A.C. 606 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 127].

R. v. Page, [1954] 1 Q.B. 170, refd to. [para. 137].

Piracy Jure Gentium, Re, [1934] A.C. 586 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 142].

R. v. Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Schtraks, [1963] 1 Q.B. 55 (D.C.), refd to. [para. 143].

Brown v. Stott, [2000] N.R. Uned. 256; [2001] 2 W.L.R. 817 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 165].

Fitt v. United Kingdom (2000), 30 E.H.R.R. 480, refd to. [para. 165].

Statutes Noticed:

Extradition Act (U.K.), 1989, generally [para. 9 et seq.].

United States of America (Extradition) Order 1976, generally [para. 13 et seq.].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Clarke, Edward, A Treatise Upon The Law of Extradition (4th Ed. 1903), generally [para. 24]; p. 235 [para. 60].

Jones on Extradition (1995), p. 88, para. 3-023 [paras. 41, 74, 105].

Oppenheim, International Law (1905), vol. 1, pp. 196, 197 [para. 24].

Oppenheim, International Law (9th Ed. 1992), vol. 1, para. 139 [para. 137].

Counsel:

Edward Fitzgerald, Q.C., and Keir Starmer, for the appellant, Al-Fawwaz;

Ben Emmerson, Q.C., and Julia Knowles, for the appellant, Abdel Bary;

Michael Mansfield, Q.C., and T. Malony, for the appellant, Eidarous;

James Lewis and J. Hardy, for the respon­dents.

Agents:

Raja & Partners, for the appellant, Al-Fawwaz;

Ahmed & Co., for the appellant, Abdel Bary;

Birnberg Pierce, for the appellant, Eidarous;

Crown Prosecution Service, for the respon­dents.

These appeals were heard on October 22, 23 and 24, 2001, at London, England, before Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Hutton, Lord Millett, Lord Scott of Foscote and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry of the House of Lords. The decision of the House of Lords was delivered on December 17, 2001, when the following speeches were given:

Lord Slynn of Hadley - see paragraphs 1 to 46;

Lord Hutton - see paragraphs 47 to 93;

Lord Millett - see paragraphs 94 to 114;

Lord Scott of Foscote - see paragraphs 115 to 122;

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry - see para­graphs 123 to 173.