On Twitter: @JamesFirth and @s_r_o_c (post feed)

Got a tip? tip@sroc.eu

Tuesday, 17 January 2012

Dual criminality requirement of the Extradition Act 2003

This blog post has been voluntarily removed for legal reasons.


  1. Charles Oppenheim17 January 2012 at 17:08

    I'd love to agree with you, but I am sure it could be argued that O'Dwyer did know, or had good reason to know, that what he was linking to was infringing.

    Wasn't the recent Newzbin case a successful use of 107(2A)? I recall commentators said things like "Why hasn't anyone used it before? Now that Newzbin is settled, we are sure there will be more cases relying on that Clause."

  2. @Charles, Not at all. I've read both rulings of both Arnold, J and Kitchin, J.

    Ref: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation & Anor v Newzbin Ltd [2010] EWHC 608 (Ch) (29 March 2010)

    The claimants applied for damaged under S97 and then an injunction under S97A. S97 has similar "knowledge" exemption and the claimants proved using the structure of the membership-only site that the directors had knowledge

    The defendants' "Knowledge of infringement" exemption fell apart under cross examination, it's worth reading paras 65-78 of Kitchin, J's ruling

  3. The Australian case report is at

    The offence in the UK 1988 Act is of "communicating the work to the public" - see s102(2a).

    But in para 110 of the Australian judgment, it says "Given my finding that Cooper did not "make available online" or "electronically transmit" the sound recordings, the applicants must also fail in their submission that E-Talk/Com-Cen directly infringed copyright by communicating the music sound recordings to the public."

    The Australian case found that the defendant was liable in tort because he had "authorised" infringements, by linking to the content elsewhere. (I believe that the Australian courts have developed a wider meaning to "authorise" and that this arises because their statutory law is worded differently from that in the UK - but that would have to be looked into.)

    That raises the argument that even if linking to copyright infringing sites is itself is infringing, (and it is arguable that is is not) it does not follow that so linking is a crime.

  4. Just to correct, in the post above the offence is 107(2a), not 102.

  5. What were those legal reasons for the removal of the original post on this page. If you cannot say, say why you cannot say. This page is linked to from Julia O'Dwyers blog because an article is meant to be here that is not (I guess you know that already).

  6. Since examining this issue in more detail in A close examination of the US claim of jurisdiction in the O'Dwyer extradition it has been pointed out to me that some legal experts feel extradition is not appropriate and as a direct consequence I should not write anything that could be seen to prejudice a UK trial for Richard under UK law. I think this is in the interests of all concerned.


Comments will be accepted so long as they're on-topic, do not include gratuitous language and do not include personal attacks or libellous assertions.

Comments are the views of the commentator and not necessarily the view of the blog owner.

Comments on newer posts are not normally pre-moderated and the blog owner cannot be held responsible for comments made by 3rd parties.

Requests for comment removal will be considered via the Contact section (above) or email to editorial@slightlyrightofcentre.com.