Basic HTML Version
1083
Kanunları ve Tercümeleri
82- Passage of time
A person’s extradition to a category 2 territory is barred by reason of the passage of time if
(and only if ) it appears that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him by reason of the pas-
sage of time since he is alleged to have committed the extradition offence or since he is alleged
to have become unlawfully at large (as the case may be).
83 Hostage-taking considerations
(1) A person’s extradition to a category 2 territory is barred by reason of hostagetaking consi-
derations if (and only if ) the territory is a party to the Hostagetaking Convention and it appears
that—
(a) if extradited he might be prejudiced at his trial because communication between
him and the appropriate authorities would not be possible, and
(b) the act or omission constituting the extradition offence also constitutes an offence
under section 1 of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982 (c. 28) or an attempt to commit such an offen-
ce.
(2) The appropriate authorities are the authorities of the territory which are entitled to exerci-
se rights of protection in relation to him.
(3) A certificate issued by the Secretary of State that a territory is a party to the Hostage-taking
Convention is conclusive evidence of that fact for the purposes of subsection (1).
(4) The Hostage-taking Convention is the International Convention against the Taking of Hos-
tages opened for signature at New York on 18 December 1979.
84- Case where person has not been convicted
(1) If the judge is required to proceed under this section he must decide whether there is
evidence which would be sufficient to make a case requiring an answer by the person if the pro-
ceedings were the summary trial of an information against him.
(2) In deciding the question in subsection (1) the judge may treat a statement made by a
person in a document as admissible evidence of a fact if—
(a) the statement is made by the person to a police officer or another person charged
with the duty of investigating offences or charging offenders, and
(b) direct oral evidence by the person of the fact would be admissible.