Huczko v Governor HMP Wandsworth & Anor

Whether a person arrested under a Part 1 European arrest warrant was brought before the appropriate judge as soon as practicable is ordinarily reviewed on Wednesbury principles. The court must assess the overall period from arrest until production before the judge. Practicability is flexible and permits regard to the cause and duration of delay, including human error, court-list constraints and nighttime. An avoidable delay does not automatically establish a breach. Cases at the margins may reasonably admit of different conclusions.

The claimant sought a writ of habeas corpus after being arrested under a Part 1 European arrest warrant issued by the Regional Court in Slupsk. He was mistakenly taken first to Hammersmith Magistrates’ Court and was produced before the appropriate judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court about 16 hours after arrest.

The District Judge refused mandatory discharge under section 4(5) of the Extradition Act 2003, finding that the claimant had been brought before the appropriate judge as soon as practicable. The issue was whether that decision was unreasonable or irrational.

1. The application for habeas corpus was refused. The District Judge’s decision was neither unreasonable nor irrational.

2. The relevant period under section 4(3) of the Extradition Act 2003 runs from arrest under the Part 1 warrant until production before the appropriate judge. Arrival at the correct court is not itself sufficient.

3. Following Nikonovs v Governor of Brixton Prison & Anr [2005] EWHC 2405 (Admin), the question whether production occurred as soon as practicable is one of fact subject to review for unreasonableness or irrationality. The statutory criterion is practicability, rather than reasonably practicable, and cases at the margins may reasonably admit of different views.

4. The court must consider both the cause and duration of the delay. Section 4(3) allows a measure of flexibility. Human error in taking the claimant to the wrong court was unfortunate, but there was no evidence of more than human error, and the mistake was immediately remedied. The court list and the nighttime period were also relevant to the overall assessment.

5. Atlinksi v HM Prison Wandsworth [2009] EWHC 2713 (Admin) and Nikonovs concerned materially longer delays and were fact-specific. They did not require discharge on the present facts. The application was therefore refused.