![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |
England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Payne v Government of the Republic of South Africa [2025] EWHC 1043 (Admin) (30 April 2025) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/1043.html Cite as: [2025] EWHC 1043 (Admin) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
- and -
MR JUSTICE CHOUDHURY
____________________
RICHARD JOHN PAYNE |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA |
Respondent |
____________________
David Perry KC and Adam Payter (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 25 March 2025
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Dingemans :
Introduction
The proceedings before the judge
Fresh evidence
Relevant legal proceedings in South Africa
Payne v DPP
The request for extradition
The respective cases on appeal and the issues
Relevant statutory provisions
"(1) The Secretary of State must [ (subject to subsection (2))] issue a certificate under this section if he receives a valid request for the extradition [of a person to a category 2 territory].
(3) A request for a person's extradition is valid if—
(a) it contains the statement referred to in subsection (4) [ or the statement referred to in subsection (4A)] 5 , and
(b) it is made in the approved way.
(4) The statement is one that–
(a) the person is accused in the category 2 territory of the commission of an offence specified in the request, and
(b) the request is made with a view to his arrest and extradition to the category 2 territory for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence.
…
(7) A request for extradition to any other category 2 territory is made in the approved way if it is made—
(a) by an authority of the territory which the Secretary of State believes has the function of making requests for extradition in that territory, or
(b) by a person recognised by the Secretary of State as a diplomatic or consular representative of the territory.
…
(11) The Secretary of State is not to consider whether the extradition would be compatible with the Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998."
Relevant provisions of law
Whether there was a Zakrzewski abuse of process because the extradition request was not valid as it was made by the NPA and not the Minister of Justice – issue one
Whether there was an abuse of process because the Government of RSA has manipulated the court process so that it is to be inferred that it is acting in bad faith – issue two
Conclusion
Mr Justice Choudhury