Halligen v Secretary of State for the Home Department

An application to certify a question of law must be based on an accurately stated factual premise and must disclose a genuine question of law of general public importance. Where the proposed questions mischaracterise the conduct of the applicant’s former solicitors and merely seek to reopen matters that could have been advanced earlier, they do not satisfy that threshold. The court may also consider whether the application amounts to an abuse of its process.

The appellant applied for certification of three proposed questions arising from proceedings under the Extradition Act 2003. The questions concerned refusal of an adjournment, amendment of appeal grounds, alleged solicitor incompetence and compliance with article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The application followed earlier consideration of the case by Wilkie J and referred to the deficiencies in the original grounds identified by the Supreme Court. The central issue was whether the proposed questions disclosed points of law of general public importance.

1. The application to certify the three questions was refused. Each question proceeded on the premise that the appellant had previously been represented by incompetent solicitors. The court held that premise to be a travesty of the truth. The documentation showed that the previous solicitors had taken care in advising the appellant and that there had been ample time to advance the case at the extradition hearing.
2. The proposed questions therefore did not raise any question of law. They also did not conceivably raise a question of law of general public importance. The framing of the questions in terms of solicitor incompetence was improper.
3. The court considered that the application appeared, at first sight, to be an abuse of the process of the court. It had been filed on the last possible day, immediately before the appellant was intended to be removed to the United States, despite the court having made clear that there was no conceivable basis for certification.
4. The solicitors were required to show cause why the matter should not be referred to the legal aid authorities and the Solicitors Regulation Authority. They were given until 14 January to respond.

The judgment concerned an application to certify three proposed questions arising from extradition proceedings. The judgment refers to earlier consideration by Wilkie J and to deficiencies in the original grounds identified by the Supreme Court, but gives no citations for those decisions.