Tokoli v Veszprem City Court, Hungary

Where the Extradition Act 2003 prescribes a time limit for serving a notice of appeal, the court has no power to extend that time. A notice served out of time cannot confer jurisdiction on the appellate court. The court must therefore refuse to entertain the appeal, however compelling the practical circumstances may appear.

Deputy Senior District Judge Wickam ordered the claimant’s extradition on 20 August 2009. Section 26(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 required a notice of appeal to be served by 26 August. The claimant’s representatives served the notice on the Crown Prosecution Service on 16 September, after the CPS had sought confirmation that an appeal would be pursued.

The Administrative Court had to determine whether it could extend the statutory time limit and entertain the late appeal.

1. Appeal not entertained. The notice of appeal was served out of time. The statutory deadline was 26 August 2009, whereas service occurred on 16 September.
2. Section 26(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 imposed the relevant time limit. The court had no jurisdiction to enlarge it.
3. The court followed the clearly established position stated by the House of Lords in Mucelli v Government of Albania, [2009] UKHL 2; [2009] 1 WLR 276, particularly Lord Neuberger’s leading speech at paragraphs 72, 78 and 80.
4. Because the notice was late, the court had no power to entertain the appeal. The claimant therefore could not pursue it. Mr Justice Tugendhat agreed with Lord Justice Dyson.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The court held that the notice of appeal had been served out of time and that it had no power to extend the statutory period or entertain the appeal.
• District judge: Deputy Senior District Judge Wickam ordered the claimant’s extradition on 20 August 2009.