Zmijewski, R (on the application of) v Crown Prosecution Service

In extradition proceedings, strict case-management directions must be complied with because expedition is of central importance. The Criminal Procedure Rules apply to extradition proceedings to the extent that they can be applied, and permit the court to refuse an adjournment or impose another appropriate sanction for non-compliance. A requested person cannot reserve all possible bars to extradition until the hearing, particularly where the relevant facts are within his knowledge. On an appeal, further evidence concerning matters that could and should have been advanced below may be excluded. A refusal to adjourn or admit such evidence is lawful where the decision is supported by cogent reasons and is neither irrational nor otherwise unlawful.

The claimant faced extradition to Poland under two European Arrest Warrants. Westminster Magistrates’ Court repeatedly directed that a statement of issues and proof of evidence be served, but those directions were not complied with. The claimant relied principally on an unresolved assertion that he had been granted asylum in the United Kingdom and sought an adjournment to obtain further information from the UK Border Agency.

District Judge Evans refused the adjournment, refused to permit oral or further written evidence, and declined to hear proposed arguments based on passage of time and article 8 of the Convention. The claimant challenged those decisions by judicial review and also sought to raise further issues on appeal. The central questions were whether the magistrates’ court had acted unlawfully in managing the hearing and whether further evidence could be admitted on appeal.

1. Judicial review claim dismissed. The claimant’s later proof showed that, even if asylum had once been granted, he had voluntarily re-availed himself of the protection of Poland and had lived there as a settled resident. Under article 1C of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, any refugee protection had therefore ceased to apply. The asserted asylum status could not have provided a bar to extradition under section 39 of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. The Criminal Procedure Rules applied to extradition proceedings to the extent capable of application, as explained in USA v Senior District Judge, Bow Street Magistrates’ Court [2007] 1 WLR 1157. Rule 3.2(f) required the court to discourage delay and avoid unnecessary hearings. Rule 3.5(6) authorised the court, where a party failed to comply with a rule or direction, to postpone, bring forward, extend, cancel or adjourn a hearing, or impose another appropriate sanction.
3. Those case-management powers applied with at least equal force in extradition proceedings, where speed was essential. The claimant had failed on three occasions to serve the required proof and statement of issues. The proposed evidence and other potential bars to extradition were within his knowledge and could have been deployed earlier. The District Judge was therefore entitled to refuse the adjournment and to refuse to entertain the undeveloped arguments. Her decision was supported by cogent reasons and was not irrational, unlawful or otherwise open to challenge.
4. The appeal was dismissed. Applying Szombathely City Court & Ors v Fenyvesi & Anor [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin), the court declined to admit further evidence on matters that could and should have been raised below. A public funding assessment was permitted.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the judicial review challenge to the District Judge’s case-management decisions and dismissed the related appeal.
2. Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Evans refused an adjournment, refused further evidence and oral evidence, and declined to hear proposed additional bars to extradition.