Wood v City of Westminster Magistrates Court

Where legislation permits an appeal to the House of Lords only after certification of a point of law of general public importance, an application for leave cannot extend the period for extradition if certification has been refused. The statutory time-limit provisions must be construed coherently with the statutory appeal mechanism and the United Kingdom’s surrender obligations under Article 23 of the Council Framework Decision. In that situation, there is no permitted period for applying to the House of Lords, because no lawful application can be brought. The extradition period therefore expires without the additional extension contemplated by Extradition Act 2003, section 118(4).

The Secretary of State ordered the claimant’s extradition to the United States. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed, and the court refused to certify a point of law of general public importance or grant leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

The claimant then applied under section 118(7) of the Extradition Act 2003 for discharge on the ground that he had not been extradited within the required period. The district judge held that the time for extradition had been extended because the claimant had applied for leave to appeal. The issue was whether that application had such an effect despite the refusal of certification.

1. The application for judicial review succeeded. The district judge’s decision was quashed.
2. Section 114 of the Extradition Act 2003 permits an appeal to the House of Lords only where the High Court certifies that a point of law of general public importance is involved and the other statutory conditions are met. Without certification, no lawful application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords can be made.
3. Section 118(4) was therefore construed so that, where the High Court has refused to certify a point of law, there is no permitted period for applying to the House of Lords. The fact that an application for leave had been made could not extend the period for extradition.
4. That construction was consistent with Article 23 of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002, which required surrender within the prescribed time limits. It was also consistent with the legislative intention, although section 118(4) did not expressly address the possibility that certification might be refused.
5. Mr Justice Stanley Burnton agreed and expressed sympathy for the district judge, who had reached his conclusion by reading section 118 literally. The quashing order was sufficient and the matter did not need to be remitted. The Secretary of State was to pay the claimant’s costs, to be assessed if not agreed; no order was made for the costs of detailed assessment in the absence of an agreed schedule.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): the claimant’s extradition appeal was dismissed by a Divisional Court on 2 January 2007. The court later refused to certify a point of law of general public importance and refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): the present judicial review succeeded, and the district judge’s decision was quashed.