ABSTRACT
Extradition procedures are often so cumbersome and time consuming that frequently they are either ignored or intentionally circumvented by the authorities. The legality of the procedures used to secure the presence of the suspect is generally not the concern of the receiving State. An examination of the differing approaches taken by the courts to the irregular return of suspects by unlawful methods demonstrates little uniformity in principle and practice. Traditionally, national criminal courts have adhered to the male captus, bene detentus rule and have been prepared to hear criminal proceedings without regard to the circumstances by which the defendant was produced for prosecution. Any irregularities occurring outside the jurisdiction were considered irrelevant to the power of the court to try an offender lawfully arrested within the jurisdiction. Recently, courts in several jurisdictions have questioned whether adherence to the traditional rule may result in an abuse of the court process. Judges have been particularly critical of the involvement of their own national authorities in the blatant and extremely serious failure to adhere to the rule of law1 with regard to extradition arrangements and have declined to exercise jurisdiction.
