Olah v Regional Court In Plzen, Czech Republic

An appellate court should intervene cautiously in case-management decisions concerning adjournments. However, refusal of an adjournment is unlawful where the person concerned has had no reasonable opportunity to obtain evidence relevant to a potentially available statutory ground of resistance to extradition. The statutory appeal jurisdiction under the Extradition Act 2003 does not permit a merely interlocutory decision to be remitted where the ultimate extradition decision might remain unchanged. That limitation does not exclude judicial review jurisdiction. A refusal to allow a fair opportunity to obtain medical evidence may therefore be quashed and reconsidered through judicial review.

The claimant appealed against a district judge’s order for his extradition to the Czech Republic to serve a two-year sentence for sexual assault. At the extradition hearing, counsel sought an adjournment to obtain psychiatric evidence because the claimant appeared confused and was unable to give coherent instructions. The district judge refused the request, treating any psychiatric assessment as a fishing expedition, and proceeded with the hearing.

The statutory appeal raised the effect of sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Extradition Act 2003, together with the court’s jurisdiction to grant judicial review under section 34.

1. The appeal, insofar as it was brought under the Extradition Act 2003, could not simply be remitted. Under sections 26 and 27, the court’s statutory jurisdiction did not extend to returning a purely interlocutory issue to the district judge where an adjournment might or might not lead to a different extradition decision.

2. The district judge had nevertheless been plainly wrong to refuse the adjournment. The claimant had had no reasonable opportunity before the hearing to obtain psychiatric evidence relevant to a possible application under section 25. The absence of previous dealings with psychiatric institutions did not justify treating the proposed assessment as a bogus fishing expedition.

3. Although the statutory appeal route provided no adequate remedy for that interlocutory error, section 34 did not oust judicial review jurisdiction. The appeal documents were therefore treated as an application for judicial review. Permission was granted and judicial review was granted.

4. The decision refusing the adjournment was quashed. The matter was remitted for determination afresh, with a fair opportunity for the claimant to produce such medical evidence as he could obtain. The remaining grounds of appeal had been abandoned. The live issue was any question arising under section 25, which concerns whether the person’s physical or mental condition makes extradition unjust or oppressive.

5. Questions about the period required to obtain evidence were left to the requesting authority and the district judge. The matter could be heard by the same district judge, there being no reason to doubt that he would deal with it fairly.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The statutory appeal could not provide a remedy for the interlocutory refusal of an adjournment. The documents were treated as an application for judicial review; permission was granted, the decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration.
• District Judge Evans: On 3 June 2008, ordered extradition and refused an adjournment to obtain psychiatric evidence.