USA, R (on the application of) v Senior District Judge, Bow Street Magistrates' Court

On a renewed application for judicial review, permission may be granted out of time where the delay has caused no prejudice and a wider review is likely to bring complex proceedings to a prompt and orderly conclusion. Separate rulings by a magistrates’ court judge remain separate decisions, even where they arise from connected procedural steps. In extradition proceedings, issues concerning the applicable statutory regime, abuse of process, Article 5, disclosure, public interest immunity and legal professional privilege may be closely connected. The Administrative Court may therefore review them together where doing so is necessary to secure an expeditious and final determination.

The United States Government sought judicial review of a series of rulings by the Senior District Judge concerning extradition requests for Stanley and Beatrice Tollman. The requests had initially been made under the Extradition Act 1989, withdrawn, and later renewed after commencement of the Extradition Act 2003. The Senior District Judge permitted preliminary consideration of the applicable Act, abuse of process and Article 5 issues, and made rulings concerning disclosure, public interest immunity and legal professional privilege.

A single judge refused permission. The renewed application concerned whether permission should be granted out of time and whether the various rulings should be reviewed together.

1. Permission granted. The application raised important issues of general public importance, including the relationship between extradition proceedings under the Extradition Act 2003, abuse of process and Article 5, together with disclosure, public interest immunity and legal professional privilege.
2. The challenge to the legal professional privilege ruling was plainly arguable. The court rejected the submission that the three rulings concerning disclosure, public interest immunity and legal professional privilege formed one operative decision. They had been argued separately and determined by separate rulings.
3. Although challenges to some earlier rulings would ordinarily face a formidable objection based on delay, the circumstances justified granting permission out of time. No prejudice had been caused because little progress had occurred beyond further procedural rulings and delay. A narrow review of only the latest ruling was unlikely to resolve the connected issues or advance the extradition proceedings.
4. The court therefore granted permission in respect of the whole application and, where necessary, extended time for challenging all decisions made by the Senior District Judge, including the ruling of 9 December 2004. The substantive hearing was directed to take place as early as possible, with directions and listing matters reserved initially to Mr Justice Silber.
5. The court emphasised the legislative intention that extradition proceedings under the 2003 Act should be conducted expeditiously and that multiple hearings should be avoided. It suggested that the court hearing the substantive matter might give general guidance on the proper handling of abuse of process, disclosure, privilege and the applicable statutory regime.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): A single judge refused permission on 8 March 2006. On renewal, the Divisional Court granted permission in respect of the entire application, including permission out of time where necessary.