only with enforcing the criminal law."
Lord Diplock framhöll att med "offence of a political character" i Extradition Act inte kunde förstås enbart sådana brott som i sig hade ett politiskt element, t. ex. förräderi och uppror. Sådana brott var överhuvudtaget inte omfattade av Extradition Act, som däremot avsåg ordinära brott av allvarlig art. Följaktligen måste det finnas omständigheter som kunde göra sådana ordinära brott, t. ex. mord och mordförsök, till brott av politisk karaktär. Lord Diplock utvecklar sin syn på tolkningen av begreppet "offence of a political character" på följande sätt:
My Lords, the noun that is qualified by the adjectival phrase "of a political character" is "offence". One must, therefore, consider what are the juristic elements in an offence, particularly one which is an extradition crime, to which the epithet "political" can apply. I would accept that it applies to the mental element: the state of mind of the accused when he did the act which constitutes the physical element in the offence with which he is charged. I would accept, too, that the relevant state of mind is not restricted to the intent necessary to constitute the offence with which he is charged; for, in the case of none of the extradition crimes, can this properly be described as being political. The relevant mental element must involve some less immediate object which the accused sought to achieve by doing the physical act. It is unnecessary for the purposes of the present appeal, and would, in my view, be unwise, to attempt to define how remote that object might be. If the accused had robbed a bank in order to obtain funds to support a political party, the object would, in my view, clearly be too remote to constitute a political offence. But if the accused had killed a dictator in the hope of changing the government of the country, his object would be sufficiently immediate to justify the epithet "political". For politics are about government. "Political" as descriptive of an object to be achieved must, in my view, be confined to the object of over-throwing or changing the government of a State or inducing it to change its policy or escaping from its territory the better so to do. No doubt any act done with any of these objects would be a "political act", whether or not it was done within the territory of the government against whom it was aimed. But the question is not simply whether it is political qua "act" but whether it is political qua "offence".
Lord Diplock ansåg vidare att en "offence of a political character" enligt Extradition Act inte kunde anses föreligga "if the only 'political' purpose which the offender sought to achieve by it was not directed against the government or governmental policies of that State within whose territory the offence is committed and which is the only other party to the trial and punishment of the offence". Syftet med undantagsbestämmelsen kunde inte vara att garantera en brottsling straffrättslig immunitet för ett allvarligt brott som begåtts av politiska motiv, eftersom "if committed in the United Kingdom, the offender would have been convicted and punished for it irrespective of any political motive directed against the Government of any foreign State which inspired the offender to do it". Syftet med undantagsbestämmelsen beskrevs i stället av Lord Diplock på följande sätt:
The purpose of the restriction, as it seems to me, was two-fold. First, to avoid involving the United Kingdom in the internal political conflicts of foreign States. To-day's Garibaldi may well form to-morrow's Government. And secondly, the humanitarian purpose of preventing the offender being surrendered to a jurisdiction in which there was a risk that his trial or punishment might be unfairly influenced by political considerations.
Misstanken att den stat som begär utlämningen kunde ha politiska motiv bakom sin begäran kunde emellertid enligt Lord Diplock inte föreligga i