Zaporozhchenko & Anor v Westminster Magistrates' Court & Ors

Where a statutory period is expressed to begin or start with a specified day, that day is included in the computation unless the statute indicates otherwise. The corresponding date rule applies where the period runs after an event and the event day is excluded. It does not apply where the event day is expressly included. Accordingly, a period of two months starting with 3 September expired on 2 November, not 3 November. An extradition order made outside that period was ineffective, and the requested persons were entitled to discharge under the Extradition Act 2003.

The claimants were sent to the Secretary of State for a decision on extradition to Ukraine on 3 September 2010 under section 92 of the Extradition Act 2003. The Secretary of State made extradition orders on 3 November without applying for an extension. A District Judge held that the statutory two-month period expired on 3 November and refused discharge under section 99. The claimants sought judicial review, contending that the period expired on 2 November because it started with the day on which their cases were sent to the Secretary of State.

1. The claim for judicial review was allowed. The decision refusing discharge was quashed, and the claimants were directed to be discharged. The statutory appeals were withdrawn as academic.
2. Under section 102(7) of the Extradition Act 2003, the appropriate day was 3 September 2010, the day on which the Magistrates’ Court sent the cases to the Secretary of State.
3. Section 99(3) required the Secretary of State to make an extradition or discharge order within two months starting with that appropriate day. The wording included 3 September in the calculation. The period therefore ended on 2 November.
4. The corresponding date rule explained in Dodds v Walker [1981] 1 WLR 1027 depends on exclusion of the day on which the relevant event occurs. It applies where a period is expressed to run after an event, but not where the statutory wording includes the event day.
5. The Court was bound by Trow v Ind Coope (West Midlands) Ltd [1967] 2 QB 899 and Zoan v Rouamba [2000] 1 WLR 1509. Those decisions were consistent with Dodds v Walker. The same approach accorded with Pacitti Jones (a firm) v Claire O’Brien 2006 SC 616.
6. Because the Secretary of State’s orders were made one day outside the statutory period and no prior extension had been sought, section 99(2) required discharge.

The judgment does not state a prior appellate decision. It records the underlying decision of District Judge Tubbs at Westminster Magistrates’ Court, which was quashed by this Court.