Marsh v Prague 6 District Court Czech Republic

Under section 26(4) of the Extradition Act 2003, an appeal against an extradition order must be both filed and served within the statutory period. The court has no jurisdiction to extend that period, dispense with service, or use its inherent jurisdiction to cure non-compliance. Responsibility rests on the appellant and solicitors, including arranging payment of the filing fee. A court officer does not err by refusing to accept an appeal notice without the required fee, and is not obliged to refer the matter to a judge. Common-law treatment of a bank holiday does not create a general power to remedy default. The appeal was therefore outside the court’s jurisdiction and was dismissed.

The claimant sought to appeal against a District Judge’s order for his surrender to the Czech Republic under a European Arrest Warrant. The order was made on 27 April 2010. Section 26(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 required the appeal notice to be filed and served within seven days, extended to 4 May because the intervening Monday was a bank holiday.

A clerk attended the Administrative Court Office on 4 May without the required filing fee. The notice was not accepted. It was later filed and served after the statutory period. The central issue was whether the court could treat the notice as filed and served in time, extend time, or otherwise cure the default.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Divisional Court held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because the notice had not been filed and served within the period prescribed by section 26(4) of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. The majority reasoning in Mucelli v Government of Albania [2009] 1 WLR 276 established that the statutory requirement covers both filing and service. The reference to rules of court governs the manner of filing and service, not the statutory time limit. That limit is unextendable, and the court cannot dispense with service.
3. The court rejected the submission that the Administrative Court Office had erred in refusing the notice without the £200 fee. The fee was required by CPR rule 2.5. The court officer was entitled to apply the rule, and although there was power under CPR rule 3.2 to consult a judge, there was no duty to do so.
4. The statutory duties were those of the appellant, acting through solicitors. The solicitors had left filing until the last day, had not arranged payment of the fee, and had made no timely arrangements to serve the Crown Prosecution Service. The case involved no emergency or impossibility.
5. Sciezka v Poland [2009] EWHC 2259 (Admin) did not require a different result. Its unusual facts, including timely fax transmission and timely service, were materially different. It was unnecessary to resolve the difference between that decision and Regional Court in Konin, Poland, Polish Judicial Authority v Pawel Walerianczyk [2010] EWHC 2149 (Admin).
6. The bank-holiday principle recognised in Moulai v Deputy Public Prosecutor in Creteil, France [2009] 1 WLR 276 did not permit the wider inherent-jurisdiction remedy sought. The court also relied on Arunthavaraja v Administrative Court Office [2009] EWHC 18921 (Admin), which confirmed that retrospective orders cannot circumvent the statutory time limit.
7. The order dismissing the appeal was treated as a decision on an appeal for the purposes of section 32 of the Extradition Act 2003. No separate order concerning the removal period was required because section 36 applied. There was no order as to costs.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal from the District Judge’s extradition order, holding that it had no jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was filed and served out of time.