Facts: D (Inkley) was a British National and resident of England. He went on a business trip to the US and was arrested and charged with fraud (He was selling non-existent oil wells to US nationals – a serious federal offence in the US). He was granted bail (in the form of an appearance bond with the US where he agreed to pay the 48,000 USD if he didn’t appear at his criminal trial). The agreement contained an express agreement to submit to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Florida in the event of any dispute arising out of the appearance bond. D’s father died in England, and the US Pr permitted D to go to England and attend his father’s affairs but to return to the US after 30 days (he did not return). The US brought civil proceedings against D based on this bond to recover 48,000 USD. Judgment was given in favour of the US. The US then brought proceedings in England to enforce the US judgment.
Issue: Was the decision enforceable in England?
Held: No, it was not enforceable. The action sought to give effect to the US’ criminal law process designed to secure the attendance of an accused person at trial. It was therefore in substance part of the criminal proceedings in the US (even though it was a civil claim). It was ‘public’ in nature, and unenforceable in England.
Held (Purchas LJ at 265-66): “As the administrator of public law and justice to ensure the due observance of the criminal law or the exaction of pecuniary penalties if that course was frustrated. Notwithstanding its civil clothing, the purpose of the action initiated by the writ issued in this case was the due execution by the United States of America of a public law process aimed to ensure the attendance of persons accused of crime before the criminal courts.”