Conclusion: fugitivity
Conclusion: fugitivity
Therefore, I reject the appellant’s fugitivity argument. The appellant was and remains a fugitive in respect of the relevant legal process (or processes). There is a mass of evidence on which the respondent has proved it.
I briefly return to the fact that the Judge accepted the appellant’s argument at para 93. To my mind, this was generous to the appellant. Nevertheless, on appeal I am concerned primarily with whether the Judge’s ultimate conclusion that section 14 provides no bar to extradition is wrong. To this I turn.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Introduction
- Procedural history
- Ground 1 ( section 10 )
- Discussion
- Conclusion: Ground 1
- Ground 2 (Section 20)
- Article 4a
- Section 20
- Section 20
- Ground 3 ( Section 14 )
- Fugitivity
- Law
- Pillar-Neumann
- De Zorzi
- Discussion: the instant case
- Point 1: process reach
- Point 2: whereabouts
- General discussion: fugitivity
- Conclusion: fugitivity
- Section 14
- Ground 4 (article 8)
![AC-2024-LON-003550 - [2025] EWHC 2831 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png)