Lidak v The Court In In Sad Okregowy, Poland & Anor

Section 21B of the Extradition Act 2003 has mandatory effect only where a qualifying request is made before or in the extradition hearing. It does not formally apply at the appeal stage. An appellate court is not required to give effect to the section 21B scheme as though it were mandatory. Any application to adjourn, and any issue concerning less coercive measures under section 21A, falls to be considered in the appellate court’s ordinary discretion.

The appellant’s extradition appeal had been dismissed at a hearing on 4 March 2020. He applied for permission to appeal and certification of a point of law of general public importance concerning the effect at the appellate stage of a request by the requesting judicial authority to interview him in the requested state.

The proposed question also asked whether the appellate court was obliged to consider less coercive measures under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003 where section 21B would have required an adjournment had the request been made before the magistrates’ court.

1. The application for certification of a question of law of general public importance and the application for permission to appeal were refused.

2. Section 21B of the Extradition Act 2003 applies to a request made at any time before or in the extradition hearing which conforms to the statutory requirements. Its mandatory provisions do not have formal application at the appeal stage.

3. The statutory language demonstrates Parliament’s intention that the section 21B scheme should not operate mandatorily on appeal. The proposed certified question therefore did not arise on the proper construction of the statute.

4. An appellate court may address an application to adjourn based on a request of the kind contemplated by section 21B, and may take account of possible less coercive measures of the kind contemplated by section 21A, when exercising its ordinary discretion. It is not required to apply either provision as a mandatory appellate-stage scheme.

5. The two authorities relied upon by the appellant did not materially support certification and were properly distinguishable from the present case.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appellant’s extradition appeal was dismissed at a hearing on 4 March 2020. The present applications for permission to appeal and certification were refused.