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
		3 October 2012

1. MR JUSTICE IRWIN: In this case the appellant, who has submitted grounds, and a Statement of Grounds and correspondence to the court in writing, does not appear, nor is he represented. This is an appeal under the Extradition Act 2003 from a Part 1 extradition to Poland. I need not outline the facts at any length. The position is that on 15 May 2012 District Judge Zani at the Westminster Magistrate's Court ordered the extradition of Mr Andrzejak to Poland in respect of two European arrest warrants: 26 January 2009 and 7 September 2009. The appellant seeks to challenge that decision.
2. The first point to consider is whether there is jurisdiction to hear his appeal. Following the authority of the Supreme Court in the case of Pomiechowski v District Court of Legnica v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 20, and the subsequent authority of Lumenica v Government of Albania and Others [2012] EWHC 2589 (Admin), it seems to me that the jurisdictional position is as follows: Part 1 appeals require notice to be given of the appeal within seven days. That is a strict requirement which cannot be altered by the courts. Notice to the court is the statutory obligation, notice to the other parties is an obligation derived from the rules. Taking Halligen and Lumenica together, the court has discretion to take a broad view of what constitutes a notice of appeal to the court and there is discretion to waive or extend time for notice to the other parties. That obligation arises from the Rules not the Act.
3. In this instance the applicant notified the Westminster Magistrates' Court from prison on 18 May, that his solicitors, who had been acting, had ceased to act, that he needed legal aid and that he wanted to make an appeal. He asked for advice from the Magistrates' Court.
4. On 21 May he emailed the Magistrates' Court attaching the form of an appeal to the court. It seems to me that following the approach taken in Halligen, and particularly by the Divisional Court in Lemunica, I should treat the email of 21 May as good notice to the court of an intention to appeal, and that I should extend time for notice to the other parties. Therefore I do so, to cover the notice that was in fact given on 29 May by fax.
5. For those reasons it appears to me that I do have jurisdiction to consider the appeal. However, turning to the merits, a number of points are made in the respondent's skeleton argument, which has been submitted to the court. The first is that the appellant seeks to raise a number of issues on the appeal which were not raised before the District Judge, and there is an obligation under section 27 of the Extradition Act 2003 that matters to be raised on appeal should be confined, save in exceptional circumstances, to those raised before the judge.
6. The first point made, and it is a good point in my judgment, is that these issues were not raised before the District Judge. Mr Andrzejak relies on the fact that he spent 33 hours in detention before being brought before the court, and before extradition proceedings were commenced. It seems to me that that is an insufficient basis to prevent an otherwise lawful and proper extradition. He then claims that he was convicted in his absence in Poland. The certificates and paperwork, comprised in the European arrest warrant, demonstrate the contrary.
7. Mr Andrzejak then raises a number of health problems that he says should prevent his extradition. The first point there is that they were not raised below; secondly there is no medical evidence to support any of them; and thirdly, even if there were, it appears to me that they are not such as to render it unjust or oppressive to extradite him, within the meaning of section 25 of the Immigration (sic) Act 2003.
8. For all those reasons this appeal fails on the merits, not on the jurisdiction point. He may therefore be removed in due course to Poland.