Lazarov v Prosecutor's Office In Varnia, Bulgaria

On a statutory appeal under the Extradition Act 2003, the High Court may discharge a requested person only where the lower court would have been required to order discharge. That jurisdiction does not permit intervention merely because the lower court made errors, where either outcome could properly have been reached.

Judicial review remains available in exceptional cases where the lower court’s reasons do not address the facts and evidence of the case at all, so that the decision is tantamount to a nullity. In such a case, the appropriate remedy may be to quash the decision and require a fresh extradition hearing before a different experienced judge.

The appellant resisted extradition to Bulgaria under a European Arrest Warrant following an in-absentia conviction and a three-year sentence. The Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordered extradition on 11 April 2018.

He appealed under sections 26 and 27 of the Extradition Act 2003, arguing that extradition would disproportionately interfere with his private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. During the appeal, it became clear that the magistrates’ court’s reasons contained numerous factual errors and omissions concerning the offences, sentence, residence, convictions and family circumstances. The central issues were whether the statutory appeal could succeed and whether judicial review was available as an exceptional remedy.

1. Statutory appeal. Section 27 of the Extradition Act 2003 strictly limited the High Court’s power. Under sections 27(3)(b) and 27(4)(c), discharge could be ordered only if the district judge, properly directing himself, would have been required to order discharge. This was not such a case because there were substantial reasons both for and against extradition, and either result could properly have been reached.
2. Errors in the reasons. The typed reasons contained a cumulative catalogue of factual errors and serious omissions. They misstated the relevant country, dates, sentence, criminal record and period of residence, and failed adequately to address the appellant’s established family and financial circumstances. Taken together, the reasons did not address the true facts and evidence of the case at all.
3. Judicial review. Judicial review of a lower court’s decision in extradition proceedings is rare and must be exercised sparingly. It was nevertheless the appropriate remedy here because the decision was tantamount to a nullity. This was not an ordinary case of an error of fact or law within a properly reasoned decision. It was an exceptional case in which the court had failed to address the case under consideration.
4. Remedy. The judicial review claim was allowed. The order of 11 April 2018 was quashed, and the extradition application was directed to be reheard from scratch by a different district judge experienced in extradition. The statutory appeal was permitted to be withdrawn because the order under appeal had ceased to exist.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: On 11 April 2018, the district judge ordered extradition to Bulgaria.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The statutory appeal was withdrawn after the court allowed judicial review, quashed the magistrates’ court order and directed a fresh hearing before a different experienced district judge.