Jones v Government of United States

Double jeopardy does not bar extradition where the domestic conviction concerns a different act, route of importation and period from the foreign conspiracy charge. Prosecution by different states for different offences does not, without more, constitute an abuse of process. Article 8 cannot establish such an abuse without evidence connecting the requested person to the United Kingdom beyond citizenship. Extradition arguments should be advanced before the District Judge. A point abandoned below may be revived on appeal only for a good and proper reason supported by evidence.

The appellant had been convicted and sentenced in the United Kingdom for importing cocaine and cannabis from Jamaica. The United States later sought his extradition on an indictment alleging a conspiracy to import cocaine from the West Indies, through the United States, for delivery to England during an earlier period.

The extradition hearing before District Judge Evans proceeded uncontested after the appellant abandoned his double-jeopardy and abuse-of-process arguments. The Secretary of State subsequently ordered extradition. The appellant appealed, initially relying on Convention rights, but ultimately pursued only double jeopardy, abuse of process and the proposed possibility of a prosecution in England and Wales.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge’s decision to send the extradition request to the Secretary of State was plainly correct. The appeal against the Secretary of State’s extradition decision had been withdrawn.
2. The domestic conviction concerned a single direct importation of cocaine and cannabis from Jamaica to the United Kingdom in February 2009. The United States indictment concerned a conspiracy to import cocaine through the United States to the United Kingdom between July 2006 and July 2008. The different conduct, route and period made the double-jeopardy argument unsustainable.
3. Even assuming co-operation between the United Kingdom and United States prosecuting authorities, prosecution for different crimes could not, on the material before the court, amount to an abuse of process. There was no evidence of the appellant’s connection with the United Kingdom beyond his British citizenship. The Article 8 argument therefore provided no basis for resisting extradition. The court relied on the reasoning in Khan v The Government of the United States of America, [2010] EWHC 1127 (Admin), at paragraphs 45 to 48.
4. The court emphasised that extradition appeals are appellate proceedings. Arguments abandoned before the District Judge cannot ordinarily be revived without a good and proper reason, suitably supported by evidence.
5. The possible future decision of the Crown Prosecution Service not to prosecute in England and Wales could not affect the abuse-of-process issue. After allowing a short period for the CPS position to be confirmed, the court refused further adjournment and brought the proceedings to finality.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal from District Judge Evans’s decision of 3 August 2011, which had sent the extradition request to the Secretary of State. The appeal against the Secretary of State’s extradition decision was withdrawn.