The defendant had been convicted of an offence in Portugal and sentenced to imprisonment. He was given an order for voluntary departure, but his lawyers did not file an appeal. When a European Arrest Warrant was issued, he now sought an order for judicial review of SOCA’s decision not to resist the warrant, citing problems in the trial. His own appeal against the magistrate’s order was out of time.
Held: The court had no jurisdiction to hear the request: ‘Now that the Senior District Judge has ordered the requested person’s extradition the hearing before him is finished and s.9(1) is no longer applicable. Since the claimant did not file or serve an appeal notice within the 7 day required period, the European arrest warrant has been ‘disposed of’ pursuant to s.213(1)(c) of the 2003 Act. Part 1 of the 2003 Act provides a statutory scheme laying down a strict and tight timetable which precludes the possibility of invoking s.142 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980.
For those reasons, I conclude that it is not arguable that this court has any jurisdiction to entertain any claim for judicial review, be it to challenge a non-existent decision of SOCA or the refusal of the Senior District Judge to exercise a non-existent jurisdiction to re-open the statutory extradition hearing.
Judges:
Moses LJ, Hickinbottom
Citations:
[2010] EWHC 48 (Admin)
Links:
Statutes:
Extradition Act 2003 34, Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 142
Citing:
Cited – Hilali, Re; Regina (Hilali) v Governor of Whitewall Prison and Another HL 30-Jan-2008
The applicant had been detained pending his extradition. He complained that that continued detention became unlawful after fundamantal changes in the case. The telephone intercepts which were the basis of the extradition had been ruled unlawful and . .
Cited – Mucelli v Government of Albania (Criminal Appeal From Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice) HL 21-Jan-2009
The House was asked whether someone who wished to appeal against an extradition order had an obligation also to serve his appellant’s notice on the respondent within the seven days limit, and whether the period was capable of extension by the court. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Extradition, Judicial Review
Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.392990