Nikonovs v HM Prison Brixton and Republic of Latvia: Admn 2 Nov 2005

The defendant argued that a failure to observe procedures under the Act resulted in his detention being unlawful and therefore susceptible to judicial review. He had not been brought before the appropriate court as soon as practicable after his arrest, pursuant to section 4(3) of the 2003 Act, but the district judge had refused to discharge the applicant pursuant to section 4(5).
Held: Section 34 provides that a decision of the judge can only be questioned in by way of appeal under the Act. However, there is no statutory appeal against preliminary decisions of the district judge, only against the decision to extradite.
In the absence of a statutory right of appeal, the court might consider and grant habeas corpus, but in this case the continued detention was unlawful. The application for a writ of habeas corpus was granted because the applicant satisfied the court that he had not been brought before a judge as soon as practicable and that the judge’s decision not to discharge him was unreasonable. It would require the strongest words in a provision such as section 34 to remove the ancient remedy of habeas corpus where the applicant was able to satisfy the court that he had not been brought before a judge as soon as practicable for the purposes of section 4(5), a decision under which is not appealable.


Scott Baker LJ


[2006] 1 WLR 1518, [2005] EWHC 2405 (Admin), CO/7767/2005




Extradition Act 2003 4


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedUnited States of America, Regina (on the Application of) v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court Admn 6-Sep-2006
The defendant a serving prisoner sought an adjournment of his extradition to a time closer to the end of the sentence he was to serve in England.
Held: The court had sympathy with the argument that where the district judge is being invited to . .
CitedSlator v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court, High Court of Dublin (Interested Party ) Admn 4-Oct-2006
Application was made for the prisoner to be extradited whilst he served his prison sentence here. The application had been made early in the prisoner’s nine year term, intending that it should then be adjourned until a point close to te completion . .
CitedHilali v Governor of HMP Whitemoor and others Admn 25-Apr-2007
The claimant had been in prison pending removal after his resistance to a European Extradition Warrant had failed. Subsequent developments in the case against him in Spain suggested that the case against him might now fail. He sought a writ of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235203