High Court dismisses appeal against extradition orders under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights
Henriques v Judicial Authority of Portugal [2019] EWHC 1998 QB (Admin)
The Claimant appealed against two extradition orders to Portugal sought by two Judicial Authorities pursuant to two European Arrest Warrants.
The Claimant resisted extradition on the basis that prison conditions in Portugal were such that, especially in light of his state of health, his extradition would be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, art 3 and that extradition would be oppressive on account of his health under the Extradition Act 2003, s25.
The Court dismissed the appeal. Taking into account the threshold presumption for medical care in prisons in extradition cases and assurances given by the Director General of Prisons, the court was satisfied that Portugal will provide care and treatment to the Claimant which are in accord with the requirements of the ECHR, art 3.
Wife’s claim for husband’s police pension if he predeceases her transferred to Queen’s Bench under Part 8
R (Carter & Anor) v Chelmsford Crown Court [2019] EWHC 1484 (Admin)
This matter arose in the context of a challenge to the Police Pensions Regulations 1987 which have the effect that, if he were to predecease her, Mrs Carter would not be entitled to Mr Carter’s police pension because they were married after he had retired.
The Court held that Mrs Carter’s contingent claim could and should have been the subject of a straightforward claim for declaratory relief under Parts 7 or 8 of the CPR. It also concluded that, contrary to the consideration of the lower court, Mrs Carter was not entitled to make a claim under regulation H5(1) instead. This is because the regulation carefully restricts the circumstances in which such an appeal can be made to a) a refusal to admit a claim as of right; b) a refusal to admit a claim to a larger award than that granted; c) a decision as to whether a refusal to accept medical treatment is reasonable and d) forfeiture of any award. The Court considered that the only one of these criteria which might have applied was a); however because Mrs Carter was not at the time entitled to any award, her claim could not fall under regulation H5(1). As such the Court concluded that the claim should not have been brought before the Crown Court under the regulation. Therefore, the case is to be transferred to a single judge of the Queen’s Bench, and treated as if it was a claim commenced under Part 8.
Court rejects habeas corpus writ and dismisses claim for judicial review in fraud extradition case
Jane v Westminster Magistrates' Court [2019] EWHC 394 (Admin)
This matter concerned an application for habeas corpus or, in the alternative, an application for permission to claim for judicial review.The court held that the appropriate procedure in the case was an application for permission to bring a claim for judicial review and not habeas corpus. This is because, considering the case law, the court determined that a complete answer to the writ of habeas corpus was provided by the fact that there was lawful authority for the applicant’s detention. Therefore the correct route to follow was to submit that the decision of the District Judge to refuse his application for discharge was flawed on various public law grounds, and these would be grounds of judicial review.As such, the granted permission for a claim for judicial review to be heard. However, the court dismissed the judicial review claim. The court considered the CJEU case of Vilkas but determined that it did not apply because that case concerned the obligation to release an individual from custody if delay meant that the ten day time limit for surrender to the requesting state under art 23 was not met, whereas in the instant case the applicant was on bail, not in custody. Rather, the court held that Vilkas provided authority that the mere expiry of the art 23 time limits cannot relieve the executing Member State of its obligation to carry on with the procedure for executing an EAW. The court concluded that the submissions advanced in relation to subsequent decisions from the Supreme Court of Ireland in Vilkas and Skiba fell to be rejected as they added nothing to what the CJEU said in relation to EU law, and their outcomes depended on questions of Irish law. It also concluded that the District Judge’s decision was open to him on the evidence and so was not irrational. Therefore the court rejected the claims for judicial review.
DPP appeal against acquittal of DSEI protestors partially successful
DPP v Ziegler & Ors [2019] EWHC 71 (Admin)
This matter concerned appeals against the dismissal of charges of obstructing a highway during protests against the Defence and Security International fair on the basis that the District Judge was not entitled to find there to have been a ‘lawful excuse’ for the obstruction following a consideration of reasonableness.
The Court dismissed the appeal in the cases of the fifth to the eighth respondents, as it lacked jurisdiction to hear it due to it having been brought out of time.
However, it upheld the appeal for the first to the fourth respondents. This was because the Court held that, though there was no disorder, no obstruction of and no assault on police officers, this did not prevent the offence of obstruction of the highway being committed. The Court considered it highly relevant in any assessment of proportionality that the respondent’ actions did not only obstruct vehicles headed to the DSEI arms fair, but rather also impeded the ability of other members of the public to go about their lawful business as they in fact obstructed the entire highway, and this was for a not insignificant amount of time. The Court concluded that the District Judge’s overall assessment of proportionality was at the end of the day ‘wrong’.
As such, for the first to the fourth respondents convictions were entered and the cases were remitted for sentencing.
Lawful to provide mutual legal assistance for the criminal investigation into ‘the Beatles’ without death penalty assurances
R (El Gizouli) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 60 (Admin)
This judicial review, arising in the context of one of the so-called ‘Beatles’, considered the lawfulness of mutual legal assistance in support of a criminal investigation which may lead to prosecution for offences which carry the death sentence, without requiring an assurance from the foreign state that the prosecution would not seek the death sentence.
The Court considered five grounds. Inter alia, the Court rejected the argument that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment and as such it is unlawful for the Home Secretary to contribute to the risk of its imposition, finding that there is no precedent or statute for the extension of the non-facilitation principle to those outside the protection of the ECHR, and it is well-recognised that the courts are careful not to develop the common law to undermine or alter arrangements established by statute. The Court found there to be no warrant for interpreting UNCAT, art 16 as prohibiting the death penalty on the basis that it amounts in itself to cruel or inhuman punishment, and found no support for the assertion that international law necessarily precludes the provision of mutual legal assistance in proceedings in which an individual might face the death penalty. The Court also rejected the contention that the decision not to seek a death penalty assurance was inconsistent with the UK Government’s policy of opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances because it considered that it is a matter for the Government whether to adopt policy and to decide whether it should be absolute or qualified. The Court rejected the claim that the treatment of Mr El Sheikh violates the claimant’s ECHR, art 3 and 8 rights because there is no “direct and immediate link” between the measures and the claimant’s private and/or family life”, and in this case there were various causes for the claimant’s distress, most noticeably the voluntary actions of her son.
Therefore the Court dismissed the claim for judicial review on all grounds.