Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The Lord Advocate (for the Government of the United States of America), Crown Office, Edinburgh, EH7 4AU.
Discussion and decision [4] I shall deal with the various points raised by counsel in the following order:
Recovery [6] Civil and criminal recovery of documents is competent in adversarial proceedings in Scotland. The sheriff’s power in an extradition matter are equivalent, as nearly as may be, to those of a sheriff in a summary trial., see section 77 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Kapri v HM Advocate No 6 2015 JC 30; 2014 SLT 557 ; 2014 SCL 377 , where the Lord Justice Clerk stated:
“It appears, from the terms of the 2003 Act, that extradition proceedings at first instance are governed by the rules of summary criminal procedure (see sec 77(2)(a) ) and that, subject to any statutory exceptions, the rules of evidence must be those applicable to criminal cases (see, eg secs 77(2)(b), 206(1), (2) ).”
“ 83 The 2003 Act places a duty on the judge to decide a large number of matters before acceding to a request for extradition. To these should be added the duty to decide whether the process is being abused, if put on inquiry as to the possibility of this. The judge will usually, though not inevitably, be put on inquiry as to the possibility of abuse of process by allegations made by the person whose extradition is sought.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.