Case No. CO-934-2005-&-CO-3620-2005

80.In the grounds of appeal Mr Jones took four points under s.103 of the 2003 Act against the District Judge’s rulings, and two against the Secretary of State under s.108. Against each it is said that he “ought to have decided [questions] before him… differently” and “if he had decided the question[s] in the way he ought to have done, he would have been required to order the person’s discharge” (ss.104(3), 109(3)). The points against the District Judge’s rulings, in the order in which I will deal with them, are:i)The judge should have held that the offences specified in the extradition request were not “extradition offences” within the meaning of s.137 of the 2003 Act.ii)He should have held that the defendants’ extradition was barred by reason of the passage of time: s.82.iii)He should have held that the proceedings were an abuse of the process of the court. I should notice the specific basis on which this submission is put forward in the Grounds of Appeal: “[t]he US Department of Justice has sought to gain unfair procedural advantage by manipulating the process of the English court in that it unnecessarily delayed the submission of the request for extradition until the Extradition Act 2003 came into force”.iv)He should have held that the defendants’ extradition would not be compatible with their Convention rights under the 1998 Act: s.87.The points relating to the Secretary of State are:v)He should have concluded that there were no or no effective specialty arrangements pursuant to s.95.vi)He should have concluded that the defendants’ extradition would not be compatible with their Convention rights under the 1998 Act.There is a degree of overlap between some of these points. Subject to that I will deal with them in the order I have set them out.