The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to apply the Rules to extend time to appeal against discharge of an extradition request. The notice of appeal was not filed (or served) within seven days.
Held: Latham LJ said: ‘I acknowledge the force of this argument. But it begs the question as to what power the court does have to extend time in the circumstances where there is an express statutory time limit. Section 28 does not in itself provide any power to extend time. And no other general provision in the 2003 Act giving such power was drawn to our attention. In so far as it brings into play rules of court, it only does so in the context of defining how a notice of appeal is ‘given’. The rules . . make it plain in paragraph (3(a) (a reference to CPR Part 52 paragraph 22.6A) that this is to be done by way of filing and serving the relevant notice. No power is given to extend the statutory time limit. Further as with the provision of the CPR Rule 3.9 the court’s general powers of management in Rule 3.1(2)(a) only give power to the court to extend time for compliance with a rule, practice direction or court order. It follows in my view, that there is no power to extend the statutory time limit in section 28(5).’
Latham LJ, Davis J
[2007] 1 WLR 3249, [2008] 1 All ER 733, [2007] EWHC 615 (Admin)
Bailii
Extradition Act 2003 28, Civil Procedure Rules
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council v Latif Admn 13-Feb-2009
The council appealed against a decision that the crown court had jurisdiction to extend the time for appeal against refusal of a private hire vehicle licence.
Held: The court did not have the jurisdiction it used: ‘The terms of the section 300 . .
Applied – 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. . .
Mentioned – Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council v Latif Admn 13-Feb-2009
The council appealed against a decision that the crown court had jurisdiction to extend the time for appeal against refusal of a private hire vehicle licence.
Held: The court did not have the jurisdiction it used: ‘The terms of the section 300 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Extradition, Civil Procedure Rules
Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.250459
