England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		16th April 2010

1. LORD JUSTICE PILL: Listed today was an appeal by Mr Popa against an order for his extradition. A European arrest warrant had been considered. The respondent to the appeal was the district court in Plzen Mestro in the Czech Republic. The appeal was brought under Section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 ('the 2003 Act')and the claim was to be that the warrant was formally defective and should be quashed, and the discharge of the appellant ordered.
2. The court was told yesterday of developments, in that a second warrant had apparently been issued. We do not know why that was issued, and whether that involved concessions as to the form of the current warrant before the court, which was the one challenged. Members of the court appeared today on the understanding that the appeal in that event would not be pursued.
3. Counsel Miss Mannion, and Mr John Jones for the judicial authority, have however appeared to bring the court up to date. In particular Miss Mannion has drawn the court's attention to section 42 of the 2003 Act, the terms of the which are set out in a witness statement of Mr Absar Khan dated 15 April. We received this morning, in the course of the hearing an earlier case a narrative from the Crown Prosecution Service giving the sequence of events. There appears to be a second EAW but that it has not yet been executed.
4. The appellant is in detention. Miss Mannion seeks the discharge of the appellant under Section 42(3) of the 2003 Act. The section is headed "withdrawal of warrant while appeal to High Court pending." Sub-section 1 applies if at any time in the relevant period the High Court is informed by the designated authority that a Part 1 warrant issued in respect of a person has been withdrawn. The Czech Republic is a part one territory so the provisions of Part 1 of the Act applied. No doubt the court is within the relevant period.
5. Sub-section 3 provides:

"The court must a) if the appeal is under section 26 order the person's discharge and quash the order for his extradition and b) if the appeal is under section 28 then dismiss the appeal."

Sub-section 4 provides:

"If the person is not before the court at the time the court orders his discharge the court must inform him of the order as soon as practicable."

6. It was almost an hour ago that the court was confronted with that situation. The designated authority, that is SOCA, is not before the court. Mr Jones was inclined to accept that Section 42 would need to operate. The court was, however, concerned that SOCA itself should give appropriate indication. Promptly counsel has taken action, and we have an email from SOCA confirmed as counsel by Mr Jones, who appears not for SOCA but for the judicial authority, which states:

"The Czech Republic have cancelled the EAW of Christian Popa dated 17 August 2009."

7. It goes on to say it has been replaced by a new warrant.
8. Whilst the word 'cancelled' is used, and not 'withdrawn', for the present purposes the two words have the same meaning and the members of the court are now satisfied that the warrant, an appeal against a finding in the Magistrates' Court in relation to which was to be heard today, has been withdrawn within the meaning of Section 42 of the 2003 Act. It follows that the appellant is entitled to his discharge under Section 42(3), and is entitled to have the order for his extradition quashed. Miss Mannion applies for that.
9. Mr Jones, having as I have said had contact with SOCA, consents to an order in these terms; whilst he is not acting for SOCA, I have no doubt he has accurately relayed to the court the position of SOCA in this respect. Accordingly, there will be an order in those terms discharging the appellant, quashing the order for his extradition.
10. It is not for this court investigate further the status of the second warrant, and what should happen on that warrant. That is a matter for those representing SOCA, the judicial authority and Mr Popa. Accordingly, we make no further comment about that. The only other action is that, whilst I have no doubt counsel will cooperate in notifying Mr Popa, I direct that the court itself, in discharge of its duties under Section 42(4) of the 2003 Act ensures that as soon as practicable Mr Popa is informed of the order of the court. Does anything else arise? No further applications?
11. MISS MANNION: No, save at one part you refer to Section 41.
12. LORD JUSTICE PILL: Thank you, I will correct that on the transcript.