14
15
R. v. GANZ. Netherlands.
30th March, 1882.
QUEEN'S BENCH : POLLOCK, B., and Manisty, J.
L.R. 9 Q.B.D. 93 ; 51 L.J, Q.B. 419; 46 L.T. (N.S.) 592.
Ganz having been committed for extradition, it was argued, upon an application for a writ of habeas corpus :
(i.) That, being a naturalized American subject, Ganz was not covered by the treaty, which, it was suggested, only was intended to apply to the extradition of subjects of one of the contracting parties.
(ii) That there was no sufficient warrant from the Netherlands. The document relied on was headed "Copy," reviewed what had been done in inferior tribunal, "authorised proceedings, with an order for arrest," and had the signatures of the Court appended. The copy was certified, and bore the official seal of the Ministry of Justice at the Hague.
Held (i.) Whatever rights a man may have affected by domicile, it is clear that each person is subject to the jurisdiction of the country in which he commits a crime. The treaty is in general terms: "any person accused of any of the crimes ... the requiring party committed within the jurisdiction of any person except (see Article III.) subjects (as defined by this Article) of the surrendering State.
(i.) It is impossible to say that what is here put forward is not a judicial document authorising arrest (see interpretation clause, section 26 of the Act of 1870). "We cannot expect that all the original documents, being judgments of foreign Courts, could be produced in London; so provision is made in section 15 for the reception of authenticated copies."
Application refused.
(See letter from Chief Magistrate to Home Office of 9th October, 1900.)
R. v. WEIL.
U.S.A.
13th July, 1882.
COURT OF APPEAL: JESSEL, M.R., BRETT, L.J., and Cotton, L.J.
L.R. 9 Q.B.D. 701; 53 L.J.M.C. 74; 15 Cox C.C. 189; 47 L.T. (N.S.) 630; 31 W.R. 60.
On 25th May, 1882, Weil was arrested on Board the "Servia" in Queenstown Harbour by a police officer, without any warrant, in consequence of a telegram received from a private inquiry agent in London, for forgery in U.S.A., and was taken before the resident magistrate, who remanded him, and afterwards sent him to Bow Street, where he was remanded by the Chief Magistrate; and afterwards the Secretary of State issued his order to the Magistrate to "proceed"; upon objection being taken that the prisoner was illegally in custody, the Chief Magistrate issued a Warrant for his arrest, and this was read over to him in the dock. He was afterwards committed.
A Divisional Court of the QUEEN'S BENCH refused an application for a writ of habeas corpus.
Upon appeal to the COURT OF APPEAL, it was
Argued: The original arrest was unlawful, and before he could be properly apprehended he must be set at liberty. The evidence before the Irish Magistrate was not sufficient to justify issue of warrant to apprehend. The Secretary of State's order to 'proceed' was not in accordance with the form in the Schedule to the Act. The warrant of committal was not addressed to any constable by name.
Held: If the accused is already in custody, a warrant for his "detention" is a warrant for his "apprehension"; no irregularity in the proceedings.
Per BRETT, L.J.: I doubt much whether a policeman is not justified in arresting a man without a warrant on reasonable grounds of suspicion of his having done that which would be a felony if committed in this country.
Evidence for the warrant must be such as "in the opinion of the person issuing" would justify.
(No appeal from Court of King's Bench to Court of Appeal, see In re Alice Woodall, 57 L.J.M.C. 72; 16 Cox C.C. 478.)
EX PARTE PIOT.
France.
25th January, 1883.
QUEEN'S BENCH :
POLLOCK, B., and MANISTY, J.
15 Cox C.C. 208; 47 J.P. 247; 48 L.T. (N.S.) 120.
A rule nisi for a habeas corpus having been granted, it was Contended: (i) The French warrant, in which the offence was stated as "abus de confiance," was not sufficient for not disclosing, with certainty, the offence for which extradition could be maintained.
(ii) The depositions before Sir J. Ingham disclosed no offence cognizable by our law.
(iii) The form of warrant of committal, in which the offence was described as "fraud by an agent," was insufficient for not disclosing, with certainty, the offence charged.
Held: Both warrants (i.) and (iii.) were sufficient.
(ii) The facts upon the depositions disclosed a prima facie case of fraud by an agent within 24 & 25 Vic. c. 96 s. 75 to justify the prisoner's committal for trial if the offence had been committed in England, and his committal was therefore good.
Per MANISTY, J., as to (iii.): It is not the warrant (of committal) that is to be looked to for ascertaining what the offence or crime is for which the man is to be detained.
You find the
(Referring to section 3 (2)
514