1 Warbrick, C, ‘Recent Developments in UK Extradition Law’ (2007) 56 ICLQ 199.
2 Bermingham (R on the application of) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office and the Home Secrerary  EWHC (Admin) 200.
3 Norris v Government of the United States  EWHC (Admin) 71.
5 Mann, FA, ‘The Doctrine of Jurisdiction in International Law’ (1964–I) RC 1, in Studies in International Law (OUP, Oxford, 1973) 35.
6 Hansard HC vol 450, c 1393 (24 10 2006) (Ryan, Ms); Hansard HL vol 686, c 285–7 (1 11 2006) (Baroness Scotland). The Guidance was ‘shared’ with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office, and city law firms were consulted, letter from Attorney-General's office, Mar 2007.
7 The announcement that the guidance for handling cross-border cases between the UK and US had been agreed was made to the House of Lords by the Attorney-General on 25 Jan 2007. Hansard HL vol 688, c WS68 (25 01 2007) (Lord Goldsmith).
9 In cases arising in Scotland, the Lord Advocate will be responsible (para 15).
10 Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States)  ICJ Rep 128.
12 Dyer, C et al. , ‘Blair’s top lawyer to advise on cash for honours questions' The Guardian (4 11 2006).
15 Green Paper, On Conflicts of Jurisdiction and the Principle of Ne Bis In Idem in Criminal Proceedings COM(2005) 696 final. Reference was made to the EC Green Paper and the Eurojust Guidelines, although little of the Guidelines was included in the Trilateral Guidance, letter (n 6).
17 Interestingly, the Attorney-General has requested clarification with regard to the Green Paper (n 15) over whether the implications for defendants of delays while conflicts of jurisdiction are considered have been fully appreciated. See House of Commons, Select Committee on European Scrutiny, 20th Report (2005–2006) (13 03 2006). 14 HO (27178) Green Paper on conflicts of jurisdiction and double jeopardy in criminal proceedings, para 14.21.
18 See Green Paper (n 15) 3.
19 ibid 4–6. The Staff Working Paper details further the three stages (n 16) 20–5.
20 See Green Paper (n 15) 4. See Guidance, para 2 above on ‘significant links’. Once again, what constitutes a ‘significant link’ is not elaborated.
21 See Working Paper (n 16) 31.
27 Section 2.3, Role of individuals and judicial review; section 2.5, Relevant Criteria.
30 See (n 14) discussing Guidelines (para 13).
31 See Green Paper (n 15) 6–7.Discussing further the role of suspects/defendants and their defence team, see Working Paper (n 16) 26–29.
32 ibid (Working Paper) 26.
36 On this matter, see discussion above on a rule of priority.
37 Working Paper (n 16) 27.
38 These criteria draw on the 2003 Eurojust Guidelines for Deciding which Jurisdiction should Prosecute. Annex to the 2003 Annual Report. Available at <http://www.eurojust.europa.int/press_annual_report_2003.htm>
39 Working Paper (n 16) 37.
41 But cf Launder v United Kingdom (Application No 27279/95) (1997) 25 EHRR CD 67 on Article 8 ECHR, the right to private and family life, where it was held that ‘… only in exceptional circumstances [will] the extradition of a person to face trial on charges of serious offences committed in the requesting State […] be held to be an unjustified or disproportionate interference with the right to respect for family life’.
42 Working Paper (n 16) 38.
43 Response by the ECBA to the Green Paper and Working Paper on Conflicts of Jurisdiction and the Principles of Ne Bis In Idem in Criminal Proceedings Presented by the European Commission, para 2.5. Available at <http://www.ecba.org/extdocserv/jurisdictionnebisinidemresponsefinal.PDF>
45 Working Paper (n 16) 35–40; Also, eg Ex p Postlethwaite  AC 97.
46 The legislative proposal was tabled to be brought forward in the second half of 2006. At the time of writing, no movement on this matter has been observed.