Nowak, R (on the application of) v Circuit Court of Swidnica, Poland

[2012] EWHC 3035 (Admin)

Case details

Case citations
[2012] EWHC 3035 (Admin)
Court
High Court (Administrative Court)
Judgment date
10 October 2012
Judgment text

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Subjects
Administrative Extradition Appellate procedure
Keywords
extradition appeal under section 26 new evidence on appeal issues not pursued below legal aid costs
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Judicial consideration

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Summary

An appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 will ordinarily be confined to the issues and evidence raised before the district judge. Evidence available below will not normally be admitted for the first time on appeal. Where the appellant accepts that the appeal has no prospect of success, the appropriate order is dismissal of the appeal.

Factual background

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a district judge’s order for his return to Poland to serve the balance of sentences for drug trafficking and participation in a criminal organisation. Issues under sections 20 and 21 had been raised below but were not pursued by experienced extradition solicitors. The claimant sought to raise them on appeal, but had no new evidence unavailable below. Counsel accepted that the appeal could not succeed.

Held

  1. Appeal dismissed. The appeal was brought under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the order for return to Poland.
  2. The claimant had originally relied on issues under sections 20 and 21 of the Act. Those issues were not pursued before the district judge, despite the claimant being represented by an experienced extradition solicitor. The appeal therefore involved an attempt to raise matters which had not been pursued below.
  3. There was no evidence before the court which had not been available to the claimant at the earlier hearing. The court stated that, in principle, it would not normally permit such evidence to be called for the first time on appeal.
  4. Counsel realistically accepted that there was no possibility of a successful outcome. The court accordingly dismissed the appeal and ordered detailed assessment in relation to legal aid.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Appellate history

  • District judge: Ordered the claimant’s return to Poland to serve the balance of sentences imposed for illicit drug trafficking and participation in a criminal organisation.
  • High Court (Administrative Court): Dismissed the appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003.

Key cases cited

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.

Cases citing this case

This feature is available to zoomLaw Pro members.