Regional Court In Poznan (Poland) v Czubala

For an extradition appeal by a judicial authority under section 28 of the Extradition Act 2003, the statutory seven-day period cannot be shortened by procedural rules. An appeal notice sent electronically after 2.30pm on the final day is therefore served within time if the statutory period has not expired. The Criminal Procedure Rules are expressly subject to the Act. Filing and service may occur simultaneously, and the notice need not be sealed before service. The High Court has no power to extend the statutory time limit for a judicial authority appealing under section 28.

Three judicial authorities sought permission to appeal against decisions by District Judges discharging requested persons in extradition proceedings. The appeal notices were filed with the Administrative Court and sent electronically to the respondents on the seventh day, but after 2.30pm. In one case the seventh day was the first day after a bank holiday. The Administrative Court Office raised two preliminary issues: whether electronic filing and service after 2.30pm were within time under section 28(5) of the Extradition Act 2003, and whether the court could extend time if they were not.

1. Electronic filing and service. The notices were properly given within the statutory period. Section 28(5) mirrors section 26(4) of the Extradition Act 2003. The decision in Mucelli v Government of Albania; Moulai v Deputy Public Prosecutor in Creteil, France [2009] UKHL 2 establishes that rules of court cannot curtail a statutory time limit. That principle applies equally to appeals by judicial authorities, despite the different context.
2. The electronic-service provisions in Part 4 of the Criminal Procedure Rules are expressly subject to other legislation. The 2.30pm deeming provision consequently could not reduce the seven-day period fixed by section 28(5). The notices were filed and served on the respondents within that period, so the court had jurisdiction.
3. Filing and service did not have to occur sequentially. Unlike the former Civil Procedure Rules regime, the Criminal Procedure Rules did not require the notice to be sealed before it was served. The essential requirement was that the respondents were put on notice that an appeal was being brought. The approach in Pomiechowski v District Court of Legnica, Poland [2012] UKSC 20 was applied in that context.
4. The court had no statutory or other power to extend time for a judicial authority appealing under section 28. The limited discretion in section 26(5), considered in Szegfu v Hungary [2015] EWHC 1764 (Admin), was not replicated in section 28.
5. The applications would be dealt with on the papers in the ordinary way.

The applications arose from discharge orders made by District Judges Zani, Jabbitt and Purdy in extradition proceedings. The Administrative Court determined the preliminary issues and held that it had jurisdiction to consider the applications for permission to appeal.