Popa, R (on the application of) v District Court In Plzen Mestro

Where a Part 1 extradition warrant is withdrawn while an appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 is pending, the court must discharge the person and quash the extradition order. For section 42 purposes, cancellation of the warrant has the same effect as withdrawal where the designated authority confirms that position. The court need not determine the status or consequences of a replacement warrant in the same proceedings.

The claimant appealed against an order for his extradition under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003, alleging that the European arrest warrant was formally defective. Before the appeal was heard, the Czech judicial authority issued a replacement warrant and the original warrant was reported to have been cancelled. The claimant sought discharge under section 42(3). The central issue was whether the original warrant had been withdrawn within section 42 and what order followed.

1. The court accepted that the Czech Republic was a Part 1 territory and that section 42 applied during the relevant period.
2. Section 42(3) required the court, where a section 26 appeal was pending and the Part 1 warrant had been withdrawn, to order the person's discharge and quash the order for extradition.
3. Although SOCA's communication used the word “cancelled” rather than “withdrawn”, the court held that the two expressions had the same meaning for the purposes of section 42. The confirmation that the Czech Republic had cancelled the warrant therefore established withdrawal within the section.
4. The claimant was accordingly discharged and the extradition order was quashed. The court made no determination concerning the replacement warrant, leaving its status and consequences to the parties and the relevant authorities.
5. The court directed, under section 42(4), that the claimant be informed of the order as soon as practicable.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The claimant's appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was overtaken by withdrawal of the challenged warrant. The court applied section 42(3), discharged the claimant and quashed the extradition order.