offences have throughout remained the same. The offences which
were the subject of the committal and the order for return
remained the same. All that has changed is the burden of proof.
The particulars of the offence in the charages stated that it
was alleged that Mr. Osman was acting without lawful authority
or reasonable excuse. It is implicit in the evidence that he had
no such authority or excuse. Under s. 21(a) of the Extradition
Act 1989 for there to be an extradition crime, what is required
is "conduct in the territory of (here) a colony which if it
occurred in the United Kingdom would constitute an offence
punishable with imprisonment for a term of 12 months" or more
which, however described in the law of the colony, is So
punishable under that law. (See the judgment of Robert Goff L.J.
in Re Nielson (1984) 79 Cr App R at PP. 11 and 12 in the
Divisional Court.) If the conduct relied on fulfils those
requirements, then a change in the burden of proof cannot affect
the question as to whether or not the offence is an extraditable
offence.
27
Page 105Page 106