Court rejects habeas corpus writ and dismisses claim for judicial review in fraud extradition case
Jane v Westminster Magistrates' Court  EWHC 394 (Admin)
- Related Member(s):
- Mark Summers QC
- Related Practice Area(s):
- Extradition and Mutual Assistance, Public Law
- Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)
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.
Mark Summers QC was involved in this case.