This carefully reasoned decision is important for three reasons. First, the court held for the first time that price-fixing constitutes an offence of conspiracy to defraud. Secondly, the court helpfully spelt out the operation of the double criminality and transposition rules set out in the Act. Thirdly, the decision provides guidance on how to balance the competing objectives of ensuring that serious crimes are prosecuted and protecting human rights.
The charges brought against Ian Norris are serious and if found guilty he could face life imprisonment in the
Norris is also charged with conspiracy to obstruct the course of justice for inter alia instructing Morgan Crucible companies and subsidiaries to destroy all documents evidencing the companies’ involvement in the conspiracy to price-fix; helping to devise a false explanation to put to the US authorities; ordering his subordinates to create false summaries of the price-fixing meetings to be used by Morgan Crucible’s staff when questioned by US authorities; and rehearsing such summaries with his staff.
The High Court dismissed Norris’ appeal on the five points of law discussed in turn below and confirmed that he should be extradited to the
Second, it held conspiracy to price-fix was an “extraditable offence” under section 137 of the Act. The Court found that the double criminality rule requires a correspondence between the conduct abroad and an offence in
Third, turning to the offence of obstructing justice, the court held that it was an “extraditable offence” under section 137 of the Act. This required the court to consider whether Norris’ alleged conduct, had it been committed in the
Fourth, the court held that Norris’ extradition was not barred for delay under section 82 of the Act. The amount of time that had passed since the alleged acts had been committed by Norris (being 16 years in respect of the conduct amounting to price-fixing and six years in respect of the conduct amounting to obstructing the course of justice) did not make his extradition unjust or oppressive.
Fifth, the court held that the extradition did not breach Norris’ rights under the European Convention of Human Rights. Section 87 of the Act prohibits extradition where it would be incompatible with the person’s human rights. The Court confirmed that only in exceptional circumstances will the extradition of a person charged with a serious offence constitute an unjustified or disproportionate interference with such person’s article eight right to respect for family life, and held that this was not such a case. The court also found that Norris’ article 14 rights were not breached. The court held that article 14 only guarantees a
Norris is seeking permission to appeal from the House of Lords in respect of the above points of law.
Ana Stanic is an associate at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom.
