Neteczca v Governor of Holloway Prison
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE MOSES
- MR JUSTICE KING
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves the extradition of an individual to Poland under the Extradition Act 2003. The individual missed the deadline for extradition and sought discharge. Procedural delays were caused by the CPS's attempt to extend the required period ex parte. The court ruled that an extension cannot be granted after the statutory period expires and affirmed the individual's right to be discharged unless reasonable cause for the delay is shown.
Judgment
Lord Justice Moses:
Once all the statutory remedies by which a requested person may resist extradition are exhausted, the Extradition Act 2003 sets out a strict timetable by which a person must be extradited. Where extradition has not taken place during the period required by the 2003 Act , a requested person may apply to be discharged and the court is required to order discharge unless reasonable cause is shown for the delay.
The required period for Part I extradition is always ten days, but the starting date varies. It is either when a decision becomes final or when a court and the authority of the requesting state agree a later starting date. The Crown Prosecution Service, the first interested party in the instant application, customarily asserts the right to finesse any application for a discharge by agreeing with the relevant court a later starting date, even after the required period has expired. This appeal is concerned with whether that practice is lawful.
The Statutory Scheme
Where there has been an appeal and the effect of a decision on appeal is that the person is to be extradited to a Category 1 country, the requested person must be extradited before the end of the period required by the statutory provisions (s.36(2)). By s.36(3):-
“The required period is –
(a) Ten days starting with the day on which the decision of the relevant court on the appeal becomes final or proceedings on the appeal are discontinued, or
(b) if the relevant court and the authority which issued the Part 1 warrant agree a later date, ten days starting with the later date.”
Where a person is not extradited before the end of the required period, s.36(8) provides for the requested person’s discharge:-
“If sub-section (2) is not complied with, and the person applies to the appropriate judge to be discharged, the judge must order his discharge, unless reasonable cause is shown for the delay.”
On 18 December 2013 District Judge Evans ordered the applicant’s extradition to Poland. The applicant appealed, pursuant to s.26 of the 2003 Act . She then withdrew her appeal and by consent her appeal was dismissed on 28 February 2014. Section 36(3) of the 2003 Act required her to be extradited to Poland before the end of 9 March 2014. She was not extradited by that date.
Pursuant to s.36(8) on 31 March 2014 the applicant applied to Westminster Magistrates’ Court seeking her discharge. The Crown Prosecution Service was informed of that application. On 1 April, Westmin