Paragraph 27
“We ourselves have very carefully considered the evidence that was before the Senior District Judge. In addition we have also taken into account the failure of the Spanish Judicial Authority to terminate the underlying Spanish proceedings relating to EAW1, in breach of their express undertaking to this court. However, as we explain at paragraph 39 below, the Spanish Judicial Authority has remedied that matter. As is apparent from the Senior District Judge's careful and considered judgment, he was also very concerned at the evidence put before him and the weight it carried.”
- 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