Abstract
ABSTRACTAs a process of formal surrender by one country to another of a person accused or convicted of an offence, extradition has both an international and a domestic operation. This article critically examines the manner in which superior courts in the United Kingdom and Australia determine the domestic and international meaning of words such as ‘accused’, and resolve discrepancies between those meanings, when interpreting and applying extradition treaties and the legislation by which extradition treaties are given domestic effect. It is argued that the difference in interpretative approach between the two jurisdictions is a result of the different backgrounds against which particular cases have arisen, as well as the Australian judicial departure from the position that incorporated extradition treaties should be interpreted by reference to public international law principles of treaty interpretation. However, neither jurisdiction has yet sufficiently resolved how the meaning of a word in an extradition treaty is to be applied as between the substantive law and procedure of different countries.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.