Mann, R (on the application of) v The City of Westminster Magistrates' Court & Ors

The statutory appeal route under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 excludes collateral challenges by habeas corpus or judicial review once the statutory process has ended or the appeal deadline has expired. The High Court retains only an exceptional jurisdiction where a genuinely substantial supervening event arises after the extradition hearing, such as an unforeseen medical condition or comparable event engaging the court’s obligations under the Human Rights Act 1998. Lawyer error, an alleged unfair foreign conviction, and an alleged decision by the executing authority to surrender do not themselves create jurisdiction. The tight statutory timetable also prevents use of the magistrates’ court slip-rule power after the extradition hearing has concluded.

The claimant had been convicted and sentenced in Portugal and later arrested in England under a European arrest warrant. A Senior District Judge ordered his extradition. The claimant’s lawyers failed to lodge an appeal within the seven-day statutory period, and the High Court held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain that appeal.

The Senior District Judge subsequently refused to reopen the extradition hearing under s.142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. The claimant sought judicial review of that refusal and contended that the Serious Organised Crime Agency should not surrender him. The central issue was whether any residual jurisdiction remained after the statutory appeal process had ended.

1. Claim refused. The court held that there was no arguable basis for judicial review of either the refusal to reopen the extradition hearing or SOCA’s proposed execution of the extradition order.
2. Section 34 of the Extradition Act 2003 provides that a decision under Part 1 may be questioned only by an appeal under that Part. It therefore excludes habeas corpus and judicial review as collateral challenges after the statutory appeal process has been exhausted or the time for appeal has expired. Mucelli v Government of Albania established that an out-of-time appeal notice could not be cured.
3. The exceptional jurisdiction identified in The Crown (oao Navadunskis) v The Serious Organised Crime Agency is confined to genuinely substantial supervening events arising after the extradition hearing. The examples given included genocidal behaviour or an unforeseen medical affliction. No such event had occurred here. The alleged unfairness of the Portuguese trial and the successive failures of the claimant’s lawyers did not enlarge the jurisdiction.
4. Following R (Hilali) v Governor of Whitewall Prison and Another, the statutory scheme prevents collateral intervention. SOCA had made no fresh decision amenable to challenge; its function was only to execute the extradition order.
5. Section 9(1) of the Extradition Act 2003 did not incorporate s.142 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 after the extradition hearing had finished. The strict timetable and the statutory provision that the warrant was disposed of under s.213(1) (c) prevented reopening.
6. The court recognised the apparent injustice caused by the loss of an appeal through lawyers’ failures, but held that it was powerless to remedy it. The claim was accordingly refused.

The judgment describes an earlier decision by Cranston J holding that the High Court had no jurisdiction because the claimant’s appeal notice was out of time. The present court then refused permission to proceed by judicial review and refused further intervention.