Today the Supreme Court gave judgment in a landmark extradition case concerning the definition of an “extradition offence” and the operation of the rule which determines whether or not an individual can be extradited for a crime which did not take place in the country which seeks his extradition.
Joseph El-Khouri, a dual UK-Lebanese citizen, living in London, was accused of insider dealing by the United States Government. His alleged offending all concerned companies which were headquartered in the United States but almost all of the conduct took place in the United Kingdom.
The Supreme Court overturned a decision of the House of Lords in Office of the King’s Prosecutor, Brussels v Cando Armas [2006] 2 AC 1. In that case the leading judgment was given by Lord Bingham who held that if some of the conduct allegedly took place in the requesting state that would be sufficient to satisfy the relevant statutory provision. Furthermore the Court found that obiter dicta conclusions of Lord Hope were mistaken: conduct can only be a synonym for acts performed by a requested person in the specified location and does not include effects felt in that location of acts done somewhere else. Furthermore, because the word “conduct” had been given an “abnormally wide” meaning it would be a “nonsense” if the same acts could be classified as occurring both inside and outside a country simply because the intended effect was to bring about harm within the territory. The real question, overall , is whether the conduct occurs inside or outside the territory. The House of Lords had been wrong to suggest that the place where the effects of the offending are felt is relevant.
It was for that reason that Mr El-Khouri’s appeal was allowed. Remarkably, he was accused of an offence which could be prosecuted in the United States. It was also an offence of insider dealing under the Criminal Justice Act 1993 and he therefore could have been prosecuted in the United Kingdom for the allegations. However it was not an offence for which he could be extradited because there was no provision of UK law which would have permitted a prosecution in equivalent circumstances of an individual in the US.
Benjamin Seifert was instructed by the CPS Extradition Unit.
The judgment can be found here.
