QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE KENNETH PARKER
|DISTRICT COURT OF LEGUNICA 59-220 POLAND||Defendant|
|REGIONAL COURT 3 PENAL DEPARTMENT POLAND||Defendant|
|TRIBUNALUL MARAMURES (MARAMURES COUNTY CRIMINAL OFFENCES COURT)||Defendant|
|POLISH COURT OF GRUDZIADZ||Defendant|
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Claimant Rozanski was not produced and was not represented
Miss A Nice (instructed by Kaim Todner) appeared on behalf of the Claimant Lukaszewski
Mr J Hardy, QC (instructed by CPS) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Crown Copyright ©
"Notice of an appeal under this section must be given in accordance with rules of court before the end of the permitted period, which is 7 days starting with the day on which the order is made."
"Both Mr Davies and Mr Hardy QC, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, referred us to the different approaches in the authorities as to what must be served within the 7 days in order to comply with section 26(4). For example, in the Regional Court in Conin, Poland v Parvel Walerianczyk  2149 (Admin) Stanley Burnton LJ, with whom Nichol J agreed, said that what must be served was a copy of the filed notice of appeal (see paragraph 27). Stanley Burnton LJ distinguished an earlier decision Parvel Sciezka v the Court in Sad Okregowy Kielce, Poland  EWHC 2259 (Admin), in which a different approach had been adopted, as a 'very hard case on the facts' (see paragraph 28). More recently, in Cane v Spain  QB (Admin), dated 17 March 2011, my Lord Collins J has declined to follow the decision in Conin. Mr Davies relied on Cane in his skeleton argument. Mr Hardy submitted that Cane had been wrongly decided."
"Nothing in the rules precludes service on the CPS or on the Respondent of an Appellant's Notice which has not been issued (or stamped as received) by the Administrative Court Office."
"... that service would be defective if an unsealed copy of the notice were served within the seven-day period, provided of course that it were in identical terms to the notice as filed. Even if service of an unsealed copy is technically defective, it may well be that the remedial power in CPR rule 3.10 could be invoked to cure the defect without offending the strict requirements of the 2003 Act."
"7. There is no statutory requirement that the grounds be in the notice of appeal, failing which the appeal is invalid. The requirement, in my judgment, is one that is covered by the Rules of Court. Indeed, it is noticeable that the Rules of Court do not specify that the notice of appeal must contain grounds. That is a request, given the language of section 6 of the appeal form, 'Please state ...' [I interpolate the references to form N161] that is provided in the form itself.
"8. There are strong reasons for not enlarging the scope of invalidity beyond the seven-day point, at least in relation to grounds. The statute does not impel such a conclusion. There are plainly problems given the tight time limit for giving notice of appeal in providing grounds of appeal."
"Bearing in mind that some appellants will not have been represented at extradition hearings before district judges, the potential unfairness of such a rigid time limit could be mitigated if a form was served on all appellants whose extradition is ordered under part 1, telling them clearly of the right of appeal, warning them of the 7 day period, and telling them what must be done within that period. In some other statutory schemes which make provision for appeals there is requirement for such a notice and, given the draconian consequences of failing to comply with section 26(4), it is perhaps unfortunate that there is no such requirement within this statutory scheme."
(Aside to the Associate of the Court).
(Aside to the Associate of the Court).