Szelagowski v Regional Court of Piotrkow Trybunalski Poland

Under section 26(4) of the Extradition Act 2003, an appeal notice must be filed and served within seven days. Service requires, at the least, a document which on its face can sensibly be described as a notice of appeal. A covering letter referring to such a document is insufficient where the notice itself is not served. The court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, and procedural rules cannot cure the absence of the statutory document. The court left unresolved conflicting approaches concerning the precise contents required for service.

The claimant sought to appeal an order made by Deputy District Judge Wickham on 7 April 2010 ordering his extradition to Poland under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003. He filed an appellant’s notice within the seven-day period, but the package delivered to the CPS contained only a covering letter and other documents, not the notice of appeal. The issue was whether the covering letter constituted service of notice under section 26(4), and whether any procedural rule could rectify the position.

1. The court declined jurisdiction and could not entertain the appeal. The seven-day period under section 26(4) expired on 13 April 2010. The claimant’s notice was filed by that date, but the notice itself was not served on the CPS.
2. Following Mucelli v Government of Albania, Moulai v Deputy Public Prosecutor in Cretiel, France [2009] UKHL 2, “given” in section 26(4) means filed and served. At the least, service requires a document which can sensibly be described as a notice of appeal. A letter stating that a notice of appeal exists is not itself the notice.
3. The covering letter was incapable of constituting a notice of appeal. It merely referred to an appellant’s notice and grounds of appeal. The copy bearing the Administrative Court reference number was not left with the CPS, and the delivered copy did not even contain that reference number.
4. The court declined to resolve the conflicting approaches in Regional Court in Conin, Poland v Parvel Walerianczyk [2010] 2149 (Admin), Parvel Sciezka v the Court in Sad Okregowy Kielce, Poland [2009] EWHC 2259 (Admin) and Cane v Spain [2011] QB (Admin), because any conclusion on the precise threshold would have been obiter on these facts.
5. Rules 3.10 and 6.27.1 of the CPR could not assist where no document capable of being a notice of appeal had been served. The court nevertheless observed that the rigid statutory limit could cause hardship and that a clear information form for persons ordered to be extradited might reduce the risk of injustice.

The judgment states that the claimant appealed an extradition order made by Deputy District Judge Wickham on 7 April 2010. The Divisional Court held that it had no jurisdiction because the statutory notice was not served within seven days.