In re Levin

The House of Lords held that extradition committal proceedings are criminal proceedings for evidential and procedural purposes. Computer-generated transaction printouts created by an automated banking system are not hearsay but are admissible as records of transactions; alternatively they fall within the special statutory regime governing computer-produced evidence. The court recognised that the section 78 discretion under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 can in principle apply to committal or extradition proceedings, but its exercise is narrowly constrained and will be rare.

The appellant is detained for extradition to the United States on charges of wire and bank fraud and computer offences. A metropolitan magistrate committed him for surrender after receiving Citibank computer printouts and accomplice evidence. The applicant sought habeas corpus in the Divisional Court, which refused relief. The appeal to the House of Lords raised three central issues: whether the Citibank computer printouts constituted hearsay or inadmissible evidence; whether section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 applied to extradition proceedings; and whether the court had or should have exercised the section 78 discretion to exclude evidence on fairness grounds. The core issue was the proper classification and treatment of computer-produced evidence in extradition committal proceedings.

1. Disposition: The appeal was dismissed. Lord Hoffmann delivered the leading speech. Lords Goff, Nicholls, Steyn and Hutton agreed with Lord Hoffmann's reasons.
2. Classification of proceedings: Per Lord Hoffmann, extradition committal proceedings are criminal proceedings for the purposes of the rules of criminal evidence and procedure. This follows earlier authority treating habeas refusal in extradition contexts as a "criminal cause or matter" and fits the statutory scheme which directs that extradition be conducted "as nearly as may be" like committal proceedings (see Extradition Act 1989, s.9(2) and Schedule 1, para.6(1)).
3. Computer printouts and hearsay: The computer transaction printouts were held not to be hearsay. They record the transactions generated by interaction with the banking system rather than asserting facts by a human declarant. Their evidential status is comparable to contemporaneous business records or a photocopy of a forged cheque. Alternatively, if regarded as statements produced by a computer, they fall within the statutory regime in Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 s.69, which imposes conditions for admissibility.
4. Section 78 discretion: Lord Hoffmann held that s.78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in principle applied to committal and extradition proceedings. However, the discretion is narrow in that context. A magistrate should exclude evidence only if its admission would so obviously render the committal decision unfair that no judge properly directing himself could admit it. The threshold is high and such instances will be rare.
5. Application to the present case: Even if the magistrate erred by not expressly considering s.78, any such error was immaterial. No reasonable magistrate would have excluded the accomplice evidence or the computer evidence on the facts before the court. The complainants about reliability and the working of the Citibank system were matters properly addressed at trial.
6. Practical guidance: Extradition courts should ordinarily assume trial judges will address detailed fairness and reliability issues. International comity and treaty effectiveness counsel restraint in applying local fairness discretions at the committal stage.

• Divisional Court (Queen's Bench Division): application for writ of habeas corpus refused; committal upheld.
• House of Lords: appeal allowed for hearing; appeal dismissed; leading speech by Lord Hoffmann; other Law Lords concurred.