Dragut v Westminster Magistrates Court & Ors

Under section 4 of the Extradition Act 2003, a person arrested under a Part 1 warrant must be brought before the appropriate judge as soon as practicable. If that requirement is not met, discharge is mandatory on application. The question is one of practicability, assessed in the circumstances as a whole. It is not simply whether earlier production might have been possible, and responsibility or fault is not itself determinative. Operational difficulties, including court cell capacity and Covid-related restrictions, may mean that production was not practicable on a particular day. The court must assess each relevant day separately.

The applicant was arrested under a conviction European Arrest Warrant issued by Italy. He was arrested on Saturday 7 November 2020 but appeared before a District Judge at Westminster Magistrates Court at 3 pm on Tuesday 10 November.

The District Judge refused an application under section 4(5) of the Extradition Act 2003, having been misinformed about the reason for the delay. The parties agreed that the High Court should decide the matter afresh on an application for habeas corpus under CPR rule 87. The central issue was whether the applicant had been brought before the appropriate judge as soon as practicable.

1. Application refused. The applicant was not entitled to discharge under section 4(5) of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. Section 4(3) requires production before the appropriate judge as soon as practicable. The requirement is mandatory, and the question is one of fact. The statutory criterion is “practicable”, rather than “reasonably practicable” or a specified period.
3. Practicability must be assessed in the circumstances as a whole. The question is not whether earlier production might have been possible, nor is it determined by allocating blame. The court may consider operational circumstances affecting production.
4. On Monday 9 November, an early booking was made to transport the applicant to court, but an error in the transport portal meant that the corrected destination was not registered by Serco. The court accepted that the error could not feasibly have been discovered until the following morning. Although administrative inertia during the day was regrettable, the evidence established that Westminster’s Covid-restricted cell capacity was 25, while 30 people were on the custody list. It was therefore not practicable to produce the applicant that day.
5. On Tuesday 10 November, the applicant was collected at approximately 11.49 am, arrived at court at 1.02 pm and appeared at 3 pm. The District Judge had been satisfied that production was as soon as practicable, having regard to the nature of the list. That aspect of the decision was unaffected by the earlier misinformation and was neither Wednesbury unreasonable, irrational nor procedurally unfair.
6. The court distinguished Nikonovs v Governor of Brixton Prison [2005] EWHC Admin 2405, because in that case no operational obstacle prevented production on the relevant day. The approach in Komendant v Circuit Court in Wroclaw Poland [2013] EWHC 2712 was applied: the statutory question is whether production earlier than it occurred was practicable, not merely possible.

The District Judge at Westminster Magistrates Court refused the applicant’s application for discharge under section 4(5) of the Extradition Act 2003. The High Court reconsidered the matter afresh because the District Judge had been misinformed about relevant facts, and refused the habeas corpus application.