Extradition

Lawfulness of detention - jurisdiction in magistrates' court to stay extradition proceedings as abuse of process R (Kashamu) v Governor of Brixton Prison and another and related applications: DC (Lord Justice Rose and Mr Justice Pitchford): 23 November 2001 Following the US government's request for his extradition, K was detained for serious drugs offences.Although the Administrative Court quashed the committal for material non-disclosure, K was immediately detained on a second warrant.The district judge declined to hear a submission that the second committal proceedings were an abuse of process, ruling that the High Court on a habeas corpus application was the appropriate jurisdiction.

In two subsequent cases, M and L, the judge followed his own ruling.K applied for a writ of habeas corpus and judicial review of the judge's ruling.

M and L applied for judicial review.Edward Fitzgerald QC and Keir Starmer (instructed by Raja & Partners) for Kashamu.

Clare Montgomery QC (instructed by Birnberg Pierce & Partners) for Makhlulif and Labsi.

Andrew Colman (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service Casework Directorate) for the governments of the US and France.Held, granting judicial review and remitting all three cases to the district judge for consideration of the lawfulness of the detention, that since the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 there was a jurisdiction in the magistrates' court to determine the lawfulness of a fugitive's detention in extradition proceedings to comply with the requirement in article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights that the lawfulness of detention be determined speedily by a court; that the jurisdiction concerned only the lawfulness of the detention, not trial issues, such as admissibility of evidence.

(WLR)