Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several precedents to bolster its reasoning:

• Francis [1995] 1 W.L.R. 1121: Addressed whether extradition proceedings are criminal, with the initial court deeming them "sui generis." The House of Lords in Levin refuted this, aligning extradition proceedings with criminal proceedings.
• Reg. v. Governor of Belmarsh Prison, Ex parte Francis: The lower court's stance in Francis was overruled, clarifying that extradition proceedings indeed fall under criminal proceedings.
• Reg. v. Shephard [1993] A.C. 380: Highlighted the limitations of section 69 of PACE in making inadmissible evidence admissible.
• Reg. v. Hull University Visitor, Ex parte Page [1993] AC 682: Provided insights into the admissibility and fairness of evidence in extradition contexts.

These precedents collectively influenced the Lords to reaffirm the criminal nature of extradition proceedings and the admissibility of computer-generated evidence within such processes.

Legal Reasoning

The Lords dissected the legal framework governing extradition, focusing on the Extradition Act 1989 and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). They emphasized that extradition proceedings must be conducted "as nearly as may be" comparable to criminal committal proceedings before magistrates, thus inherently categorizing them as criminal.

Addressing the admissibility of computer printouts, Lord Hoffmann clarified that these were not hearsay because they merely recorded transactions rather than asserting their occurrence. He further elucidated that section 69 of PACE, which regulates the admissibility of computer-generated statements, was applicable to extradition proceedings as they are criminal in nature.

The Lords dismissed the appellant's arguments that extradition proceedings were "sui generis" or that the evidence was improperly admitted under section 69, reinforcing that standard criminal evidence rules govern such proceedings.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future extradition cases in the United Kingdom:

• Affirmation of Criminal Nature: Solidifies the classification of extradition proceedings as criminal, ensuring that they adhere to established criminal procedural norms.
• Admissibility of Digital Evidence: Endorses the use of computer-generated evidence in extradition cases, provided they comply with section 69 of PACE.
• Precedential Influence: Guides lower courts in handling similar extradition cases, especially concerning the admissibility of electronic records and the procedural treatment of extradition.
• International Cooperation: Enhances the effectiveness of extradition treaties by ensuring that legal standards align with international expectations of criminal proceedings.

Extradition Proceedings as Criminal Proceedings

Extradition proceedings involve the legal process of surrendering an individual from one jurisdiction to another for the purpose of facing criminal charges. This case reaffirms that such proceedings are treated similarly to criminal trials, subjecting them to the same rules of evidence and procedure.

Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay refers to statements made outside of the courtroom that are presented to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Generally, hearsay is inadmissible because it cannot be cross-examined. However, in this judgment, the computer printouts were deemed not to constitute hearsay as they were factual records of transactions, not assertions.

Section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)

Section 69 governs the admissibility of computer-generated evidence in criminal proceedings. It sets requirements to ensure that such evidence is reliable and accurate. In the context of this case, compliance with section 69 meant that the computer printouts could be admissibly used in extradition proceedings.