United States interpretation of the exemption

[chandon55]

However, in the mid 20th century U.K. law changed to incorporate a more clement interpretation. Although English law shared the common origin in In re Castioni, the rigid “two-party struggle” requirement of the British incidence test has not survived (Quinn at 796). In the 1950s, “British courts … [took] other factors into account, noting that political phone number list offenses … [had to] be considered according to the circumstances existing at the time”(Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison at 540).


Instead of a distinct uprising, the new British “incidence” test requires some “political opposition … between fugitive and the requesting State” (Schtraks v Government of Israel, [1964] AC 556,591 (HL)) and “incorporates an examination of the motives of the accused and the requesting country in those situations in which the offense is not part of an uprising” (Quinn at 796). This interpretation seems to reflect a view more consonant with the Swiss test. However, “… the is, in some ways, the most strict, for the fugitive has no prospect of success unless a political disturbance is proven.”