QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
|REGIONAL COURT IN GDANSK POLAND||Respondent|
WordWave International Ltd (a Merrill Corporation Company)
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2DY
Tel: 020 7421 4043 Fax: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Ms N Draycott (instructed by CPS) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Crown Copyright ©
7. Note: The court associate was unable to provide the shorthand writer with the document mentioned above. If it can be provided with the amendments, the required text can be reproduced above.
The relevant provisions of the Act read as follows:
(1) The extradition of a person ("D") to a category 1 territory is barred by reason of forum if the extradition would not be in the interests of justice.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the extradition would not be in the interests of justice if the judge -
(a) decides that a substantial measure of D's relevant activity was performed in the United Kingdom; and
(b) decides, having regard to the specified matters relating to the interests of justice (and only those matters), that the extradition should not take place.
(3) These are the specified matters relating to the interests of justice -
(a) the place where most of the loss or harm resulting from the extradition offence occurred or was intended to occur;
(b) the interests of any victims of the extradition offence;
(c) any belief of a prosecutor that the United Kingdom, or a particular part of the United Kingdom, is not the most appropriate jurisdiction in which to prosecute D in respect of the conduct constituting the extradition offence;
(d) were D to be prosecuted in a part of the United Kingdom for an offence that corresponds to the extradition offence, whether evidence necessary to prove the offence is or could be made available in the United Kingdom;
(e) any delay that might result from proceeding in one jurisdiction rather than another;
(f) the desirability and practicability of all prosecutions relating to the extradition offence taking place in one jurisdiction, having regard (in particular) to -
(i) the jurisdictions in which witnesses, co-defendants and other suspects are located, and
(ii)the practicability of the evidence of such persons being given in the United Kingdom or in jurisdictions outside the United Kingdom;
(g) D's connections with the United Kingdom.
(4) In deciding whether the extradition would not be in the interests of justice, the judge must have regard to the desirability of not requiring the disclosure of material which is subject to restrictions on disclosure in the category 1 territory concerned.
(5) If, on an application by a prosecutor, it appears to the judge that the prosecutor has considered the offences for which D could be prosecuted in the United Kingdom, or a part of the United Kingdom, in respect of the conduct constituting the extradition offence, the judge must make that prosecutor a party to the proceedings on the question of whether D's extradition is barred by reason of forum.
(6) In this section "D's relevant activity" means activity which is material to the commission of the extradition offence and which is alleged to have been performed by D."
"First, the ultimate test is whether the extradition would not be in the interests of justice. See section 19B(1).
Secondly, there is a threshold or qualifying condition that a substantial measure of a Defendant's relevant activity was performed in the United Kingdom. See section 19B(2)(a).
Thirdly, the section is not concerned with the case where a defendant has been charged with an offence in the United Kingdom. That situation is covered by section 22 of the Act which requires the adjournment of an extradition hearing, as happened in the case of Joseph Harrison. Section 19B is concerned with the case where there is a possibility of a prosecution in this country.
Fourthly, where the court finds that the threshold or qualifying condition is satisfied, the court must go onto consider the six specified matters which relate to the interests of justice which are set out in sub-section 3(a) to (g) and "only those matters". See (2)(b).
Fifthly, the terms of section 19B contain no further guidance as to the weight to be given to the specified matters which should be taken into account. The relative importance of each matter will vary from case to case and the weight to be accorded to the specified matters may also vary. The court will be engaged in a fact specific exercise in order to determine whether the particular extradition would not be in the interests of justice."
"In my judgment, section 19B(3)(c) was not intended to invite a review of the prosecutor's belief as to the more appropriate jurisdiction on grounds short of irrationality. It was certainly not intended to invite a debate with demands for documents justifying the belief."
For all those reasons, this appeal is dismissed.