19319/92
On 30 July 1992 the application for judicial review was refused by the Divisional Court on the merits and the application for habeas corpus was dismissed. The Court held that the Secretary of State was not shown in the circumstances to have prejudiced the applicant by the course which he had adopted, since:
1.
2.
3.
4.
he had stated that his decision would not have been different had he read the applicant's representations;
the substance of those personal representations should have been clear to the Secretary of State;
the Secretary of State's decision was not one which on the facts no sensible Secretary of State could have reached; and
as a matter of English law, the Secretary of State was not required to await the proceedings pending in Strasbourg and could form his view about the adequacy of the specialty
assurance.
The
On 11 August 1992 the applicant applied for leave to appeal against these decisions, which proceedings are pending. applicant's extradition is in the meantime suspended.
COMPLAINTS
(a)
(b)
(c)
The applicant complains as follows:
that his extradition is unlawful, contrary to the standard of Article 5 para. 1 (f), because of the absence of sufficient specialty protection; his detention with a view to extradition is accordingly also unlawful;
that his extradition is unlawful because of the denial of an effective remedy whereby
whereby the lawfulness of detention and extradition can be tested following the order of the Secretary of State to surrender him, contrary to Article 5 paras. 1 and 4 of the Convention; and
that such a remedy is denied on the facts of the applicant's case, but is available in the case of an extradition to which section 12 of the Extradition Act 1989 applies and this difference in treatment is without justification or legitimate aim, is disproportionate and constitutes discrimination contrary to Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 5 of the Convention.
In respect of these complaints the applicant claims to be denied an effective remedy, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention.
The applicant submits that the requirement of specialty is so fundamental a tenet of the rules relating to extradition in the laws of the Member States of the Council of Europe as to constitute a requirement implicit in the term "lawful" where it is used in Article 5 para. 1 (f) of the Convention. He contends, in the context of