Greer, R (On the Application Of) v The Judicial Authority of Ireland

For extradition appeals, filing a notice of appeal within time seises the Administrative Court, even where service has not complied with the strict procedural requirements. The appeal remains pending until the court disposes of it. If the court dismisses the appeal as invalid, the case is treated as an extradition following an appeal, so section 36 of the Extradition Act 2003 applies. The no-appeal timetable in section 35 does not apply merely because the notice was defectively served.

The claimant was wanted in Ireland for trial and had been ordered to be extradited by District Judge Riddle at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. He filed a notice of appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003, but failed to serve the sealed notice on the judicial authority within the required seven-day period.

The claimant argued that there had never been an appeal, so section 35 applied and the extradition period had expired. The central issue was whether section 35 or section 36 governed the extradition timetable.

1. The application to cancel the extradition warrant was refused. The appeal was dismissed because it had not been lodged in time.

2. Section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 and the relevant Part 52 practice direction required the appellant’s notice to be filed and served within seven days. Failure to serve the sealed notice meant that there was no valid appeal. The time limit was strict and there was no discretion to excuse the non-compliance.

3. Once the court received a notice of appeal, it was seised of the matter and obliged to deal with it. The appeal continued in an inchoate form until dismissed. This was consistent with Regional Court in Konin (Poland) v Pawel Walerianczyk [2010] EWHC 2149, where an appeal affected by non-compliance with the service requirement was dismissed after the court determined that it was invalid.

4. Section 35 applies where no notice of appeal is given within the permitted period. It did not apply because a notice had been filed and the court had to determine its validity. The dismissal operated as a decision on an appeal that the claimant was to be extradited.

5. Section 36 therefore applied. The ten-day period ran from the date when the appellate decision became final or the appeal proceedings were discontinued. Applying section 35 instead would create uncertainty and potentially chaotic consequences.

The judgment records the following prior stage:

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Riddle ordered extradition after rejecting the claimant’s argument under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003 that extradition would be incompatible with his Convention rights.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The claimant’s appeal was dismissed as invalid for failure to comply with the statutory and procedural time requirements. The court held that section 36, rather than section 35, governed the extradition timetable.