The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Appeal Court of Eastern Crete, Greece v Andrew

For an appeal by a requesting judicial authority under the Extradition Act 2003, the statutory seven-day period for serving notice on both the High Court and the respondent is mandatory. The court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal where service on the respondent was not completed within that period.

The general power in the Criminal Procedure Rules to extend time cannot override the statutory limit. Electronic transmission creates only rebuttable presumptions about the date of service. The serving party must ensure that the notice has in fact been received and should obtain prompt confirmation.

The Greek requesting judicial authority appealed under section 28 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s decision discharging the respondent from a European Arrest Warrant. The discharge had been based on the proportionality of extradition under article 8 of the ECHR.

The appeal notice and documents were emailed within seven days to the court and the respondent’s solicitors, but the solicitors did not receive them within that period. The preliminary issue was whether the court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal despite the failed electronic service.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court had no jurisdiction to entertain the requesting authority’s appeal because the respondent had not been served with notice of the application for leave to appeal within the mandatory seven-day period under sections 28(5) and 26(4) of the Extradition Act 2003, as confirmed by CrimPR rule 50.19(3)(a).
2. The court followed Mucelli v Albania [2009] UKHL 2, which held that the equivalent statutory requirement involved service both on the court and the other party within seven days. The time limit was absolute and could not be extended under the general procedural power. The change from the Civil Procedure Rules to the Criminal Procedure Rules did not alter that conclusion, because rule 50.17(6)(a) expressly prevents an extension inconsistent with legislation.
3. Under CrimPR rules 4.6 and 4.11(2), electronic service is subject to rebuttable presumptions as to the date of service. The presumption for an email sent by 4.30 pm in an extradition appeal may be displaced by evidence showing when it was actually received. The evidence established that the respondent’s solicitors received no appeal documents by the end of the permitted period.
4. The court gave practical guidance that a party serving electronically bears the risk of failing to verify receipt. A receiving party should cooperate by promptly acknowledging receipt, but the absence of a delivery failure notification does not establish that service occurred.
5. Pomiechowski v Poland [2012] UKSC 20 concerned a generous approach to adequate notification, but did not displace the strict requirements governing service by a requesting judicial authority. It was unnecessary and inappropriate to address the merits of the article 8 issue.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 28 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed because the respondent was not served within the statutory period.
• District Judge: On 17 August 2017, the respondent was discharged from the European Arrest Warrant after the judge concluded that extradition would disproportionately interfere with her and her family’s article 8 rights. Other challenges were dismissed.