Remaining sentence calculation and principle of speciality in extradition proceedings under Turkish Law

Share this case

Keywords / Topics

🇬🇧 Summary

The case concerned an extradition request submitted by the United Kingdom against H.D.B. for the execution of the remaining portion of a sentence imposed for intentional bodily harm.The extradition request arose after the requested person allegedly violated parole conditions relating to a six-year prison sentence imposed by the Wood Green Crown Court in 2008.The Aydın 4th Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible under Law No. 6706.The defence appealed, arguing inter alia that:- the sentence had effectively been completed following release in 2019;- the UK execution system had subsequently changed;- extradition would expose the requested person to disproportionate and inhuman punishment;- the extradition request failed to clearly specify the remaining executable sentence;- specialty-principle safeguards were insufficient.The Turkish Court of Cassation held that the lower court failed to sufficiently determine the exact remaining custodial sentence still executable in the United Kingdom.The Court emphasized that:- extradition detention may not exceed the remaining enforceable sentence;- proportionality assessment required clarification of the precise balance of sentence remaining;- supplementary information should have been requested from the requesting State.The Court further held that the judgment inadequately addressed specialty-principle protections under Article 10(4) of Law No. 6706.The extradition admissibility judgment was therefore quashed.

Cite this case

Need to reference this case in a brief, article or submission?

Legislation

- Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters (Article 5, Article 10(2), Article 10(4), Article 15(2), Article 16(4), Article 18(4))
- Turkish Criminal Procedure Code (CMK) (Article 285, Article 302(2),
- European Convention on Extradition (Article 2(1), Article 18(4))

ECHR References

Although not expressly cited, the defence raised arguments concerning:
- proportionality;
- inhuman punishment;
- execution regime changes.
Relevant ECHR context may include:
- Article 3 ECHR
- Article 5 ECHR

Academic Commentary

The United Kingdom requested the extradition of H.D.B. for the enforcement of the remaining portion of a sentence imposed for intentional bodily harm.
According to the extradition request submitted by the Crown Prosecution Service on 29 March 2023, the requested person had been sentenced by Wood Green Crown Court on 8 August 2008 to six years’ imprisonment. The extradition request related to alleged violations of parole conditions and enforcement of the remaining sentence.
The Aydın 4th Heavy Penal Court found the extradition request admissible.
The defence appealed, arguing that:
– the sentence execution process had effectively concluded following release in 2019;
– the execution regime in the United Kingdom had subsequently changed;
– extradition would expose the requested person to inhuman or disproportionate punishment;
– the extradition request failed to clearly identify the remaining executable sentence;
– the requested person might again become eligible for parole.
The Turkish Court of Cassation examined the request under:
– Law No. 6706 on International Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters;
– the European Convention on Extradition (ECE).
The Court emphasized:
– Article 10(2) of Law No. 6706 and Article 2(1) ECE concerning extradition thresholds;
– Article 16(4) of Law No. 6706, which provides that extradition detention may not exceed the executable sentence;
– Article 18(4) ECE regarding detention periods pending surrender.
The Court held that the extradition file did not clearly establish:
– the exact remaining sentence to be enforced;
– whether further parole possibilities existed;
– how much custodial time remained executable following prior detention periods.
The Court concluded that supplementary information should first have been requested from the United Kingdom before extradition admissibility could properly be assessed.
The Court additionally identified procedural deficiencies, including:
– conducting proceedings under a “miscellaneous file” number rather than a principal merits file;
– failure to expressly incorporate specialty-principle limitations into the judgment.
The judgment was therefore quashed.