Bergman, R (on the application of) v District Court In Kladno Czech Republic

The statutory appeal regime for extradition decisions imposes a strict seven-day limit. An effective appeal requires a sealed notice to be filed with the court and served in accordance with the rules within that period. The court cannot treat an unsealed draft as an effective notice, look behind these formal requirements, or extend the time limit. Procedural unfairness or difficulties faced by an unrepresented prisoner do not confer jurisdiction where no valid appeal has been lodged.

Mr Bergman, a Czech citizen, was ordered by District Judge Evans on 21 September 2010 to be returned to the Czech Republic under a European Arrest Warrant. He prepared and signed a draft notice of appeal, which was faxed on 24 September but was unsealed and ineffective. A completed notice was received by the court shortly before the expiry of the seven-day period on 27 September, sealed and returned by fax, but Mr Bergman did not receive it in time to serve it on the Crown Prosecution Service. The issue was whether the court could treat those steps as an effective appeal or extend the statutory time limit.

1. The application was refused. There was no valid appeal before the court and therefore no appeal that could be dismissed.
2. Extradition Act 2003, section 26(4), requires notice of an appeal to be given in accordance with the rules of court within seven days beginning on the day the order is made. The requirement is strict.
3. An effective notice must be a sealed copy, filed with the court and served on the other side within the permitted period. An unsealed draft does not satisfy the statutory regime.
4. The court could not extend the time limit or overlook the failure to serve the sealed notice. The approach was consistent with Mucelli v Government of Albania [2009] 1 WLR 276 and Regional Court in Konim Poland v Pavel Walerianczyk [2010] EWHC 2149 (Admin).
5. The judge accepted that Mr Bergman had not received the sealed document promptly and recognised the difficulty faced by unrepresented litigants in custody. Those circumstances did not give the court power to create an appeal where the statutory conditions had not been met.
6. The asserted expiry of a separate 17-day extradition period did not alter the position. A failed or ineffective attempt to appeal did not entitle the claimant to release or prevent his return.

District Judge Evans: On 21 September 2010, ordered Mr Bergman’s return to the Czech Republic in compliance with the European Arrest Warrant.

High Court (Administrative Court): Held that no effective appeal had been lodged because the sealed notice had not been served within the statutory period. The court had no power to extend time.