Skraba v Regional Court In Nowy Sacz Poland

Section 60(3) of the Extradition Act 2003 permits the High Court, when dismissing a statutory extradition appeal, to review and, where appropriate, vary or quash a first-instance costs order made under section 60(1). The power is ancillary to the properly constituted appeal and avoids the need for separate judicial-review proceedings.

A costs order must be just and reasonable. It should not exceed costs actually and reasonably incurred or the requested person’s ability to pay. The person must have a fair opportunity to provide financial information and make submissions. Advance notice of the intended application and likely amount is ordinarily appropriate.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order for his extradition to Poland to face prosecution for robbery and assault. The statutory appeal was dismissed.

The District Judge had also ordered the appellant to pay £500 under section 60. The appellant challenged that order within the statutory appeal and alternatively sought judicial review. The central issues were whether the High Court had jurisdiction under section 60(3) to review the first-instance costs order and, if so, whether the amount and payment period were just and reasonable.

1. Jurisdiction. The appeal against extradition was dismissed, but section 60(3) empowered the High Court to review the costs order made below under section 60(1). The provision was construed in the light of the wider reasoning in Hamilton–Johnson v RSPCA [200] 2 Cr App R (S) 390. The absence of a separate statutory appeal against costs did not prevent review when the court was already seized of a permitted section 26 appeal.
2. Section 34 did not create an appeal where the Act provided none. It also did not exclude judicial review of decisions outside the statutory appeal routes. The authorities concerning section 34, including R (Nikonovs) v Governor of Brixton Prison [2005] EWHC 2405 (Admin), Hilali v Central Criminal Proceedings no 5 of the National Court, Madrid [2006] EWHC 1239 (Admin) and R (Aslitirk) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2010] EWHC 2148, supported that conclusion.
3. Costs principles. The statutory discretion belonged to the court, not the requesting authority. The governing standard was whether the order was just and reasonable. The order should not exceed the prosecutor’s actual and reasonable costs or the requested person’s ability to pay. A fair opportunity to provide financial information was required. The court left open whether costs should ordinarily follow the event or be reserved for pointless contests.
4. The £500 order, payable within 14 days, was not just or reasonable in light of the appellant’s limited means, responsibility for a partner and young child, and the practical risk that payment would be required before removal. The order was varied to £100 payable within 14 days.
5. The CPS conducted proceedings for the issuing Judicial Authority and was not itself a party. Costs could nevertheless be made payable to the General Prosecution Fund, provided the identity and basis of the applicant were clear.

1. Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge McPhee ordered extradition on 19 February 2014 and imposed costs of £500 under section 60 of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): The extradition appeal under section 26 was dismissed. The High Court held that it could review the first-instance costs order under section 60(3) and varied it to £100.