- Reaction score
- 20,248
- Points
- 1,160
The Extradition Act does not require that a charge be laid within the jurisdiction seeking extradition. S 3(1) of the act requires the extradition to be "for the purpose of prosecution" amongst other things. S 33(1) requires that the request for extradition to be accompanied by "a document summarizing the evidence available to the extradition partner for use in the prosecution".What the actual hell...
Not charged with a crime. Can’t present any evidence to suggest he was even involved. And yet taken into custody and sent to another country “just because they asked” — only to eventually be free’d from custody without charge. Then comes home.
If we ever asked a judge to sign off on a warrant for arrest for someone who we a) hadn’t charged with a crime, and b) had no evidence to result suggest he committed a crime... I would be in for some serious career troubles.
How on earth did we allow this??
You need to remember that in some civil law jurisdictions there is a criminal pre-trial process which may involve an examining magistrate/judge as part of the pre-trial and charging process. Individuals suspected of offences can be compelled to attend before an investigating magistrate/judge who determines if the individual merits trial by a court. If the magistrate/judge finds there is insufficient evidence then no trial is ordered. If more evidence is uncovered later the case can be reopened for further determination. In effect the investigating magistrate/judge is a part of the investigative and prosecutorial evaluation part of certain cases and is conducted prior to what we here would consider "laying a charge" however it is clearly within the ambit of "the purpose of prosecution"
