QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (DIVISIONAL COURT)
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
MRS JUSTICE RAFFERTY
In the matter of an application for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum
And in the matter of Extradition Act 2003
|- and -
|THE GOVERNER OF HM PRISON BRIXTON
THE REPUBLIC OF LATVIA
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr Peter Caldwell (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Interested Party
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Scott Baker:
"If subsection (3) is not complied with and the person applies to the judge to be discharged, the judge must order his discharge."
Is habeas corpus available?
"A decision of the judge under this Part may be questioned in legal proceedings only by means of an appeal under this Part."
"The hearing at which the appropriate judge is to decide whether a person in respect of whom a Part I warrant was issued is to be extradited to the category I territory in which it was issued."
(1). On 26 June 2003 Baroness Anelay of St Johns, before the Grand Committee, quoting the minister in the House of Commons:
"The common law right of habeas corpus goes back many centuries and there is nothing in the Bill that affects it . It is always open to a fugitive to raise habeas corpus issues. At every stage, the district judge is required to consider whether remanding in custody or granting bail is appropriate and to ensure that custody issues are properly taken into account."
(2). On the same occasion Baroness Scotland of Asthal said:
"Let me make clear from the start that there is certainly no attempt to remove habeas corpus by the measures in the Bill. The provisions seek to abolish the statutory habeas corpus which was first introduced in 1967 and then consolidated through the Extradition Act 1989, and replace it with a different appeal system. Habeas corpus, as we know and love it, which was given birth to by Magna Carta remains.
During the Bill's passage in the other place, various assertions were made that we might be abolishing habeas corpus. I want to make it absolutely clear that any such concerns are quite wrong. The common law right of habeas corpus remains; anyone who is subject to extradition can bring a common law habeas corpus claim. Whether it will succeed is obviously an entirely a different matter."
A little later she said:
"I hope the Members of the Committee will accept that the procedures which the Bill puts in place comply fully with the principles of habeas corpus. And although, as I have said, there would be nothing to prevent a person bringing a habeas corpus claim, it is hard to see how it could possibly succeed, the principles having already been satisfied by the scheme created in the statute. For that reason I cannot see why we need to include a special provision requiring the High Court to consider habeas corpus factors."
Given these assurances Baroness Anelay withdrew her amendment to provide for the express retention of habeas corpus in the Bill.
Was he brought before a judge as soon as practicable?
Mrs Justice Raffety: