flagrant breach
is not the touchstone to be applied in cases where apprehended breaches of Articles 5 and 6 ECHR are raised in resistance to expulsion decisions involving transfer between the High Contracting Parties who have subscribed to the ECHR. We contrast the test applicable in cases involving expulsion to third country states: see
- PART 1
- Introduction
- The Statutory Framework
- The Secretary of State’s Decision
- organised crime
- The European Arrest Warrant
- current
- Del Rio Prada v Spain
- Spanish Judicial Authority v Arranz (No 3)
- The Appellant’s Witness Statements
- The Operative Extradition Decision
- itself
- The Principal Grounds of Appeal
- deduced
- The Burden of Proof Issue
- Insofar as the appeal relies upon the 2006 Regulations, the burden is also on the Appellant, the standard being the balance of probabilities
- this
- might
- Other Grounds of Appeal
- (i) Misunderstanding The Evidence
- E v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department
- E & R
- (ii) Misunderstanding the Second Divisional Court’s Decision
- Paragraph 27
- Paragraph 28
- Paragraph 60
- Kandola
- Spanish Judicial Authority v Arranz
- Vanda Puceviciene
- persecution
- (iv) The Article 6 ECHR Issue
- R (EM Eritrea) v SSHD
- flagrant breach
- R (Ullah) v SSHD
- Conclusion
- PART 2
- The Evidence of Professor Silke
- The Battle Lines Drawn
- in itself
- General
- JS (Sudan)
- The ‘Colectivo’ Issue
- Risk of Reoffending
- The Appellant’s Terrorist Criminality and ETA
- from this perspective,
- Del Rio Prada
- could
- The Reluctant Witness
- Marchon v Immigration Appeal Tribunal
- Nazli
- Ex parte Marchon
- Bouchereau
- Omnibus Conclusion