Snedden v Republic of Croatia

In the case of Snedden v Republic of Croatia, the appellant contested the extradition order issued by a magistrate. The central issue before the court was whether the appellant had established a valid extradition objection under section 7(c) of the relevant Act. This section allows for an objection if there are substantial grounds for believing that the person may be prejudiced at trial or punished by reason of their race or political opinions. The appellant argued that statistical evidence indicated a higher rate of prosecution and conviction for Serbians compared to Croatians, suggesting discrimination based on nationality or political opinion. The court examined the interpretation of the phrase "at his or her trial" in section 7(c), considering whether it encompasses all steps leading up to the trial or is limited to the trial itself. The court ultimately decided that the interpretation of this phrase was not necessary to resolve the case due to other findings, but it highlighted the importance of focusing on trial practices and potential discrimination during the trial process.

The court concluded that the appellant had made out an extradition objection as the magistrate failed to properly consider the evidence of discrimination and its potential impact on the appellant's trial. This failure constituted a substantial error of law. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the extradition order was quashed. The court ordered the appellant's release from custody, subject to a temporary stay to allow for appropriate submissions from both parties. The respondent was also directed to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal. Additionally, the court reserved the right for either party to apply to vary the release order within a specified period.