Cheng v Government of the United States of America
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE AIKENS
- MR JUSTICE NICOL
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Administrative Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The appellant, accused of conspiring to export pressure transducers to Iran, faced extradition to the US. Despite contending that the specified offenses did not warrant extradition and that the Secretary of State's order lacked necessary assurances, the District Judge and the Secretary of State's decisions were upheld. The court emphasized the focus on conduct over specific charges and upheld the extradition as the offenses were part of the same criminal enterprise.
J U D G M E N T
MR JUSTICE NICOL: On 6 March 2014 the USA Department of Justice requested the appellant's extradition to face trial in the US District Court of Massachusetts on an indictment with ten counts and related forfeiture proceedings. In broad terms the indictment alleged that between 2009 and 2012 the appellant was party to a conspiracy to secure the export of pressure transducers from the USA when their ultimate destination was Iran. Transducers can be used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
The appellant was arrested on a provisional warrant on 7 February 2014. The Secretary of State certified the request on 12 March 2014. An extradition hearing took place at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 5 June 2014 before District Judge Kenneth Grant. He sent the case to the Secretary of State on 16 June 2014. The District Judge's decision to do so was the first matter which is the subject of an appeal before this court. The Secretary of State made an extradition order on 7 March 2014 and that is the second matter which is the subject of appeal.
Before the District Judge the only matter in dispute was whether the offences specified in the request were extradition offences (see Extradition Act 2003, Section 78 (4) (b)). The District Judge held that they were. Mr Alun Jones QC, on the appellant's behalf, alleges that he was wrong to do so. If these were not extradition offences the District Judge was obliged to discharge the appellant (see Section 78 (6)), and that is what Mr Jones says he should have done. It is convenient to take this matter first before turning to the appeal against the Secretary of State's decision.
The USA is a category 2 territory to which Part II of the Extradition Act applies. Accordingly, the relevant definition of an "extradition offence" is in Section 137 which says:
"(1) This section sets whether a person's conduct constitutes an ‘extradition offence’ for the purpose of this Part in a case where a person -
(a) is accused in a category 2 territory ..... of an offence constituted by the conduct .....
.....
(2) The conduct constitutes an extradition offence in relation to the category 2 territory if the conditions in sub-sections (3), (4) or (5) are satisfied.
(3) The conditions in this sub-section are that -
(a) the conduct occurs in the category 2 territory;
(b) the conduct would constitute an offence under the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom punishable with imprisonment or another form of detention f