Ahmad v USA & Anor

In extradition appeals, the court should pursue early resolution and respect statutory timetables. A general adjournment pending decisions in other cases is inappropriate where it would halt comparable extradition applications and separate issues remain to be decided. Related appeals may properly be listed together where they share common issues, but any application to adjourn must be considered separately in each case. A party seeking further time must demonstrate that every reasonable effort has been made to obtain the necessary evidence.

Two statutory appeals under the Extradition Act were before the Divisional Court for directions. The first claimant also renewed an application for permission to apply for judicial review. The judicial review issue was identical to an issue in Norris, while points of law had been certified in Norris and Bermingham and applications for permission to appeal were pending before the House of Lords Appellate Committee.

The claimants sought a general adjournment, or alternatively an adjournment until October, to enable further enquiries. The defendants opposed the delay. The court had to determine the appropriate listing and case-management directions.

1. Directions and adjournment. The court declined to adjourn the statutory appeals generally pending the House of Lords’ decisions in Norris and Bermingham. Such an adjournment would effectively bring applications for extradition to the United States to a halt, and the appeals involved separate issues.
2. Expedition. Extradition cases carry a premium for early resolution. Parliament had imposed timetables intended to be observed. Every effort should therefore be made to hear the appeals before the end of the summer term, on 31 July 2006.
3. Joint hearing. Because the appeals raised a number of common issues, had common counsel, and could be heard efficiently together, they were directed to be listed before the same constitution of the Divisional Court, with an estimated hearing length of three to three and a half days.
4. Further evidence and adjournment applications. Any further evidence relied on by the appellants had to be filed no later than two weeks before the hearing. Liberty to apply for an adjournment was granted, but the assigned presiding Lord Justice was expected to entertain such an application only if the evidence showed that every effort had been made to obtain the necessary material. Any adjournment application would be considered separately in each appeal.
5. Other directions. Provisional two-way video-link facilities were to be made available for Ahmad, subject to confirmation that they were required. The time for both appeals was extended until 31 July 2006. Mr Justice Leveson agreed with Lord Justice Scott Baker.

Not stated in the judgment.