The claimant sought judicial review of a refusal to make an ex gratia payment for his imprisonment whilst successfully resisting extradition proceedings. Terrorist connections had been suggested, but the judge made an explicit finding that at no stage had any evidence been produced.
Held: The 1988 Act provided only limited circumstances for a payment, but it had left in place the residual arrangements under the ex gratia scheme. The respondent said that the scheme covered only successful appeals after conviction, and not extraditions. There was no legitimate expectation because the scheme was based solely on a ministerial statement, and it was ex gratia. The implementation of such policies was subject to oversight by the courts only for irrationality: ‘courts should allow latitude to a minister to decide, within a reasonable range of meaning of his statement of policy, to what it applies and what it means.’ The ex gratia scheme applies only to exceptional circumstances arising out of a wrongful conviction or charge, and the claim failed. Extradition proceedings were not within the scheme. It would have been surprising if the scheme had been intended to make the UK responsible for a failing in a foreign prosecutor.
Judges:
Auld LJ, Wilkie J
Citations:
[2007] EWHC 243 (Admin), [2007] 4 All ER 225
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mullen, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 29-Apr-2004
The claimant had been imprisoned, but his conviction was later overturned. He had been a victim of a gross abuse of executive power. The British authorities had acted in breach of international law and had been guilty of ‘a blatant and extremely . .
Cited – The First Secretary of State and Another v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd CA 6-May-2005
Sedley LJ: ‘the interpretation of policy is not a matter for the Secretary of State, what a policy means is what it says. Except in the occasional case where a policy has been ambiguously or un-clearly expressed (see R v Derbyshire CCC, ex p Woods . .
Cited – Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Webb CA 1987
Interpretation of CICB Scheme
The court should not construe the scheme as if it were a statute but as a public announcement of what the Government was willing to do. This entails the court deciding what would be a reasonable and literate man’s understanding of the circumstances . .
Cited – Horsham District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment CA 1993
. .
Cited – Regina v Derbyshire County Council ex parte Woods CA 7-Feb-1997
The claimant renewed his application for leave to appeal against rejection of his challenge to the grant of planning permission for a substantial redevelopment of land near his home.
Held: Brooke LJ considered the interpretation of planning . .
Cited – Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Kent and Milne Admn 6-Mar-1998
The court applied the test of ‘the reasonable and literate man’ to questioning the action of the Board. . .
Cited – Springhall, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames CA 24-Jan-2006
The claimant appealed refusal of a judicial review of the exercise of a delegated power by an official.
Held: Where the underlying facts and the applicable polices were clear, such an officer’s decision could only be challenged in the case of . .
Cited – Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd HL 28-Oct-1999
Same Sex Paartner to Inherit as Family Member
The claimant had lived with the original tenant in a stable and long standing homosexual relationship at the deceased’s flat. After the tenant’s death he sought a statutory tenancy as a spouse of the deceased. The Act had been extended to include as . .
Cited – Regina ex parte Grecian v Secretary of State for the Home Department 3-Dec-2004
. .
Cited – In re McFarland HL 29-Apr-2004
The claimant was convicted, imprisoned, and then his conviction was overturned. He sought compensation. He had pleaded guilty after being told by counsel to expect an adverse direction from the magistrate, following a meeting in private between . .
Cited – Daghir and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Home Department Admn 13-Feb-2004
. .
Cited – Regina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .
Cited – Regina v Governor of Pentonville Prison Ex Parte Alves HL 2-Dec-1992
In extradition proceedings, the withdrawal of a statement did not of itself vitiate that statement or the proceedings. The Galbraith test applied to committals in extradition proceedings just as it does to domestic criminal trials. . .
Cited – In Re Levin; Regina v Governor of Brixton Prison, Ex parte Levin HL 10-Apr-1997
The applicant had been detained pending extradition to the United States on charges of fraud. He said the evidence would not have been sufficient to justify his committal for trial.
Held: The Francis case did not establish that the 1984 Act . .
Cited – In Re Ismail (Application For Writ of Habeas Corpus) (On Appeal From A Divisional Court of The Queen’s Bench Division) HL 20-Aug-1998
The term ‘Accused person’ for the purposes of extradition can include a person yet to be charged. Allowance are to be made for foreign systems, and should recognise the purpose of the legislation and includes the desire to interview or where a . .
Cited – Fofana, Belise v Deputy Prosecutor Thubin, Tribunal De Grande Instance De Meaux, France QBD 5-Apr-2006
When considering whether an offence was disclosed in an extradition application, what matters is the nature of the conduct described in the extradition request or warrant; the ‘charge’ has no formal status in the extradition proceedings. It is an . .
Cited – Fofana, Belise v Deputy Prosecutor Thubin, Tribunal De Grande Instance De Meaux, France QBD 5-Apr-2006
When considering whether an offence was disclosed in an extradition application, what matters is the nature of the conduct described in the extradition request or warrant; the ‘charge’ has no formal status in the extradition proceedings. It is an . .
Cited – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions Ex Parte Thom QBD 21-Dec-1994
The Court could not judicially review a decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to discontinue extradition proceedings because, when acting in such proceedings on behalf of the requesting state, the Director does not act as a prosecutor, . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department, ex parte Bateman – Regina v Same ex parte Howse QBD 5-May-1993
Compensation for a wrongful imprisonment should include circumstances of miscarriage of justice as well as pardons. A magistrate is not a public authority. The threshold of exceptionality is high: ‘It was essentially a question for the Secretary of . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Raissi, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 14-Feb-2008
The claimant appealed against refusal of his request for judicial review of the defendant’s decision not to award him damages after his wrongful arrest and detention after he was wrongly suspected of involvement in terrorism. He had been discharged . .
Cited – VB and Others v Westminster Magistrates SC 5-Nov-2014
Extraditions to follow normal open justice rules
Application was made by Rwanda for the extradition of four individuals to face crimes said to have been committed during their civil war. Witnesses were prepared to give evidence but only in private and not being seen by the representatives of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Damages, Prisons
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248994