In the English law, how is a conflict of interest between an extradition request and a criminal conviction solved?
<p>This question was motivated by Julian Assange's famous case, but it is a more general question.</p>

<p>As it is <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/julian-assange-prison-jail-time-weeks-bail-embassy-a8894326.html?amp" rel="nofollow noreferrer">known</a>, he currently has a conviction of 50 weeks prison term for bail jumping. Thus, England wants him to serve it in a prison (jail?).</p>

<p>From the other side, another country - this time, the USA - wants him, without a conviction (in the USA), but because also they want to punish him.</p>

<p>Thus, we have a conflict of interest:</p>

<ol>
<li>The English criminal system wants him to serve his punishment. They are probably tuned to not allow him to go to anywhere, until he served his prison term.</li>
<li>Also the criminal system of another country wants him. The U.K. is bound by international agreements to give him to them.</li>
</ol>

<p>The logical solution would be to first make him to serve his punishment in the U.K., and then extradict him to the USA. It seems a likely outcome in JA's case, but not always.</p>

<p>For example, in the case of a famous terrorist or war criminal, it would be surreal to delay his criminal procedure, only because he committed also some traffic offense in the U.K.</p>

<p>Which interest will be stronger? How is it being decided?</p>

<p>Yes, they just wait until he has served his time in most cases. </p>

<p>The United Kingdom and the United States can agree that he can serve the time in the United States though.</p>

criminal-law united-kingdom extradition