Klimento v Westminster Magistrates' Court

The application was allowed. The Administrative Court quashed the District Judge’s decision rescinding the extradition order and also quashed any order intended to set aside the consent procedure. The original extradition order was thereby reinstated.

The claimant challenged a decision made by a District Judge on 16 April 2012. That decision rescinded the extradition order and, so far as intended, set aside the consent procedure on which the order had followed. The central issue was whether those decisions should stand.

1. Disposition. The application was allowed by agreement of the Divisional Court.
2. The District Judge’s decision of 16 April 2012 rescinding the extradition order was quashed.
3. In so far as the District Judge intended to make an order setting aside the consent procedure, that order was also quashed. The court expressly clarified that it was quashing the order, rather than the consent procedure itself.
4. The extradition order originally made following consent was reinstated and was to come into force immediately.
5. The claimant’s costs were subject to legal aid taxation on the usual terms.

The supplied judgment records the agreed operative outcome but does not set out the court’s fuller reasons.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The application was allowed. The District Judge’s decision of 16 April 2012 was quashed, together with any order intended to set aside the consent procedure.