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.
Held: The appeal failed (Lord Rodger dissenting). Giving notice, for the purposes of the statutory appeals process under Part 2 of the 2003 Act, entails both filing and serving notice of appeal and that the fourteen day permitted period for giving notice cannot be extended by the Court invoking its powers under the Civil Procedure Rules. Being a statutory time limit, the court had no discretion to extend it. (Lord Rodger dissenting)
In interpreting a statute a court should ‘pay no attention whatever to the explanatory notes as an indication of their meaning. In this case the notes do not identify the mischief behind the enactments. Nobody outside government knows who drafted them, or revised them or on what basis. They cannot be regarded as any kind of authoritative guide to the meaning of the provisions. ‘
However where service had been made by fax shortly after 4:00pm, there was no need to apply the Civil Procedure Rules to deem this late service. The Rules had been disapplied by the statute.
Lord Rodger said the rule: ‘it imposes a substantial burden on a prospective appellant and his advisers. The question is whether Parliament considered that, exceptionally, the matter of service had to be taken out of the hands of the courts and subjected to the same immovable time-limit – with failure to meet the deadline resulting in the prisoner’s extradition, however meritorious the appeal that had been filed, however venial the slip that had resulted in service being late, and however little the prejudice that it had caused to the respondent. The potential for substantial injustice is striking.’
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Carswell, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
[2009] UKHL 2, Times 27-Jan-2009, [2009] 1 WLR 276, [2009] WLR (D) 12
Bailii, HL
Extradition Act 2003 26 28 103 105, Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (2002/584/JHA), Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(2)(a) 3.10 6.9 52
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Mucelli v Albania and Another Admn 15-Nov-2007
. .
Cited – Gercans v The Government of Latvia Admn 27-Feb-2008
The court was asked whether there was jurisdiction in High court to hear an appeal under section 26(4) against extradition order. . .
Cited – Saber v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 12-Dec-2007
The applicant sought asylum, saying that it would be unsafe to order his return. The issue before the House was as to when the need for protection should be assesed where, as here, there had been a series of appeals over time.
Held: The appeal . .
Appeal from – Moulai v Deputy Public Prosecutor In Creteil France Admn 9-May-2008
The court was asked ‘Whether it is a fatal bar to an appeal against an order extraditing (or not extraditing) a person, that a copy of the duly filed appeal notice was served on the respondent a few minutes late?’
Held: The failure to serve an . .
Cited – Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service HL 17-Oct-2002
The applicant sought assistance from the local authority. He suffered from spinal myeloma, was destitute and an asylum seeker.
Held: Although the Act had withdrawn the obligation to provide assistance for many asylum seekers, those who were . .
Distinguished – Anderton v Clwyd County Council (No 2); Bryant v Pech and Another Dorgan v Home Office; Chambers v Southern Domestic Electrical Services Ltd; Cummins v Shell International Manning Services Ltd CA 3-Jul-2002
In each case, the applicant sought to argue that documents which had actually been received on a certain date should not be deemed to have been served on a different day because of the rule.
Held: The coming into force of the Human Rights Act . .
Cited – Pritam Kaur v S Russell and Sons Ltd CA 2-Jun-1972
The plaintiff sought damages following the death of her husband when working for the defendant. The limitation period expired on Saturday 5 September 1970. The writ was issued on the Monday following.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The writ was . .
See Also – Mucelli v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 18-Jan-2008
. .
See Also – Mucelli v Albania and Another Admn 15-Nov-2007
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Mann, Regina (on The Application of) v The City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court and Others Admn 19-Jan-2010
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 . .
Cited – Halligen v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 21-Jun-2011
The Home Secretary argued that the defendant’s attempted appeal against an extradition order was out of time and that accordingly the court had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal. Notice of service of the appeal was one day out of time.
Held: . .
At HL – Mucelli, Regina (on The Application of) v The Government of Albania Admn 27-Jan-2012
Cranston J said that in his view the law and practice in Albania was such that there was no real risk that the applicant would suffer a flagrant denial of justice on his return to Albania, as he was entitled to a retrial on the merits of the case . .
Cited – Lukaszewski v The District Court In Torun, Poland SC 23-May-2012
Three of the appellants were Polish citizens resisting European Arrest Warrants. A fourth (H), a British citizen, faced extradition to the USA. An order for the extradition of eachhad been made, and acting under advice each filed a notice of appeal . .
Cited – Modaresi, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Health SC 24-Jul-2013
The Court was asked: ‘As: (i) a public body with obligations in public law and (ii) a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998 can the Secretary of State for Health ‘the S/S’ lawfully refuse to refer a patient’s case to the First-tier Mental . .
Cited – BPP Holdings Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs SC 26-Jul-2017
The Revenue had challenged a decision by the FTTTx to bar it from defending an appeal as to VAT liability. It had failed first to meet procedural time limits and on the issue of an unless order had failed to comply. The Revenue challenged the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Extradition, Civil Procedure Rules
Updated: 10 November 2021; Ref: scu.280076