Pigas, R (on the application of) v District Court of Jelena Gora Poland

An appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 requires the appellant’s notice to be both filed and served within seven days beginning with the day on which the extradition order is made. The court has no power to extend that period or dispense with service. The requirement applies equally to appellants in custody and appellants on bail. Failure to serve within time deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction, regardless of the merits of the proposed appeal or the appellant’s personal circumstances.

The claimant appealed against an order made by Deputy Senior Judge Wickham on 20 March 2010 for his extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. He wished to raise human rights and factual objections. He filed his notice of appeal on 26 March, within the seven-day period, but it was not served on the respondent until 9 April. The court therefore had to determine whether late service could be extended, waived or dispensed with before considering the proposed grounds of appeal.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court had no jurisdiction because the notice of appeal had not been served within the statutory period.
2. Section 26(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 requires notice of an appeal to be given in accordance with the rules of court within seven days beginning with the day on which the order is made. The requirement concerns both filing and service.
3. Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, including paragraph 22.6A(3) of Section 2, reinforces that the appellant’s notice must be filed and served before expiry of the seven-day period.
4. The binding decision in Mucelli v Government of Albania [2009] UKHL 2 established that the court cannot extend time under section 26(4) or dispense with service. The same position was confirmed in Dunne v High Court of Dublin, An Irish Judicial Authority [2009] EWHC 2003 (Admin).
5. The claimant’s lack of representation and difficulties obtaining legal aid did not alter the statutory rule. The legislation and practice direction drew no distinction between appellants in custody and those on bail. Since service occurred outside the permitted period, the court could not consider the Article 8 and other substantive grounds.

The judgment states that the appeal was brought against an extradition order made by Deputy Senior Judge Wickham on 20 March 2010. No citation for that decision is given. The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.