Back to Network
3
Shared Docs
3
Same-Page
3 / 3
Mentions
Document Mentions (3 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
vailable figures with respect to the timescales in Part 2 extradition cases in general, and none with respect to US extradition cases. In July 2013, the UK Government estimated that, on average, Part 2 extradition cases took approximately 10 months to conclude17. In practice, contested US extradition cases can ta
ed value" when considering the facts of individual cases: Stehlins v Government of Latvia [2006] EWHC 1272 (Admin), para. 13. 67 Gomes para. 36 and Lisowski-v-Regional Court of Bialystock (Poland) [2006] EWHC 3227 (Admin), para. 9. 67 Gomes para. 36. " Woodcock v Government of New Zealand [2004] 1 WLR 47, para. 29; Gomes, para. 32; L
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
vailable figures with respect to the timescales in Part 2 extradition cases in general, and none with respect to US extradition cases. In July 2013, the UK Government estimated that, on average, Part 2 extradition cases took approximately 10 months to conclude17. In practice, contested US extradition cases can ta
ed value" when considering the facts of individual cases: Stehlins v Government of Latvia [2006] EWHC 1272 (Admin), para. 13. 67 Gomes para. 36 and Lisowski-v-Regional Court of Bialystock (Poland) [2006] EWHC 3227 (Admin), para. 9. 67 Gomes para. 36. " Woodcock v Government of New Zealand [2004] 1 WLR 47, para. 29; Gomes, para. 32; L
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
vailable figures with respect to the timescales in Part 2 extradition cases in general, and none with respect to US extradition cases. In July 2013, the UK Government estimated that, on average, Part 2 extradition cases took approximately 10 months to conclude17. In practice, contested US extradition cases can ta
ed value" when considering the facts of individual cases: Stehlins v Government of Latvia [2006] EWHC 1272 (Admin), para. 13. 67 Gomes para. 36 and Lisowski-v-Regional Court of Bialystock (Poland) [2006] EWHC 3227 (Admin), para. 9. 67 Gomes para. 36. " Woodcock v Government of New Zealand [2004] 1 WLR 47, para. 29; Gomes, para. 32; L
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (89)
Entities connected to both the UK Government and Lisowski-v-Regional Court of Bialystock
Henderson
LOCATION5 w/ the·3 w/ Lisowski-v-Regional
Michael Cohen
PERSON4 w/ the·3 w/ Lisowski-v-Regional
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION4 w/ the·3 w/ Lisowski-v-Regional
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSON4 w/ the·3 w/ Lisowski-v-Regional
James Baker
PERSON4 w/ the·3 w/ Lisowski-v-Regional
AH
Ahmad
PERSON3 w/ the·3 w/ Lisowski-v-Regional
Crown
ORGANIZATION3 w/ the·3 w/ Lisowski-v-Regional
Blackstone
ORGANIZATION3 w/ the·3 w/ Lisowski-v-Regional
Trinidad
LOCATION3 w/ the·3 w/ Lisowski-v-Regional
Commonwealth
ORGANIZATION3 w/ the·3 w/ Lisowski-v-Regional
Appellant
ORGANIZATION3 w/ the·3 w/ Lisowski-v-Regional
the International Criminal Court
ORGANIZATION3 w/ the·3 w/ Lisowski-v-Regional
Russia
LOCATION3 w/ the·3 w/ Lisowski-v-Regional
the Cayman Islands
LOCATION3 w/ the·3 w/ Lisowski-v-Regional
Guernsey
LOCATION3 w/ the·3 w/ Lisowski-v-Regional
London
LOCATION3 w/ the·3 w/ Lisowski-v-Regional
Christian R. Everdell
PERSON3 w/ the·3 w/ Lisowski-v-Regional
the Serious Fraud Office
ORGANIZATION3 w/ the·3 w/ Lisowski-v-Regional
MC
Mark S. Cohen
PERSON3 w/ the·3 w/ Lisowski-v-Regional
AD
Adeagbo
PERSON3 w/ the·3 w/ Lisowski-v-Regional