Slator v Bow Street Magistrates' Court

Where extradition cannot take place for several years because the person is serving a domestic sentence, it is irrational to decide immediately whether extradition is barred or compatible with Convention rights. The statutory power to adjourn the extradition hearing should be used so that those assessments are made sufficiently close to the likely release date. The possible availability of later habeas corpus or judicial review does not adequately cure the problem where the detention remains lawful and no unlawful decision has subsequently arisen.

Robert Slator challenged the Bow Street Magistrates’ Court decision of 21 December 2005 refusing to adjourn an extradition hearing and making an extradition order under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003. He was serving a nine-year domestic sentence and could not be released at the earliest until 23 December 2008. Ireland had agreed that the extradition order would take effect only after his eventual release. The central issue was whether the district judge could rationally determine the statutory bars and human-rights question more than three years before extradition could occur.

1. The claim for judicial review succeeded. The refusal to adjourn under section 23 of the Extradition Act 2003, followed by the making of the extradition order, was irrational and wrong.

2. Part 1 of the Act establishes an expedited judicial extradition procedure. Sections 10 and 11 require the judge to determine whether the offence is extraditable and whether any statutory bar applies. Section 21 requires a decision on compatibility with Convention rights, and section 35 ordinarily requires extradition within the prescribed period after the order.

3. Those provisions must be applied sensibly. Although the question is one of fact and degree, where extradition cannot take place for more than three years it is irrational to assess the section 11 and section 21 issues at that distance from the relevant date. The assessment may be materially different when release approaches.

4. The possibility of later habeas corpus or judicial review did not resolve the difficulty. The court considered it highly problematical whether either remedy would be available where the claimant’s detention remained lawful, first under the domestic sentence and then under a valid extradition order. Nikonovs v Governor of HM Prison Brixton & Republic of Latvia was distinguishable because it concerned procedural failures producing unlawful detention.

5. The decisions refusing an adjournment and making the extradition order were quashed. The matter was remitted to the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court for the district judge to adjourn the extradition hearing to a date approximately 28 days before the claimant’s release date, when that date was known.

The judgment itself records the challenged decision:

• Bow Street Magistrates’ Court refused an adjournment on 21 December 2005 and made an extradition order.
• High Court (Administrative Court) allowed the judicial review claim, quashed both decisions and remitted the matter to the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court.