DEREK BROCKWELL v WESTMINSTER MAGISTRATES COURT & Anor

The power under section 8B of the Extradition Act 2003 to adjourn extradition proceedings while a requested person serves a UK sentence may be exercised repeatedly for successive six-month periods. It is not conditional on the issuing state being able to arrange temporary surrender under Article 24.2 of the Framework Decision.

The power is nevertheless subject to legal limits. A district judge must assess all the evidence and decide whether the proceedings serve any purpose. If they do, the judge must consider whether the requested person’s particular circumstances, including Convention rights, make a further adjournment exceptionally unreasonable or disproportionate. Judicial review is available only for illegality, irrationality or an erroneous Convention-rights assessment.

The claimant, serving two indeterminate sentences in England, was wanted in Ireland under a European Arrest Warrant concerning convictions and alleged offences there. Because the Irish authorities could not arrange temporary surrender and the claimant could not be extradited until release from UK custody, Westminster Magistrates’ Court repeatedly adjourned the extradition proceedings under section 8B of the Extradition Act 2003.

The claimant sought judicial review of the District Judge’s decision of 11 January 2021 to adjourn the proceedings for a further six months. He relied on the practical futility of continued adjournments, Articles 6 and 8 rights, and abuse of process. The central issues were the scope of section 8B, the relevance of Article 24.2 of the Framework Decision, and whether the particular adjournment was irrational or disproportionate.

1. Application dismissed. The District Judge’s decision of 11 January 2021 could not be impugned.
2. Section 8B confers a broad and general power reflecting Article 24.1 of the Framework Decision. The power may be exercised repeatedly. The statutory reference to adjournment until release from detention, together with the six-month review requirement and section 12 of the Interpretation Act 1978, supports successive adjournments.
3. Article 24.1 operates independently of Article 24.2. The absence of Irish legislation enabling temporary surrender did not cause the extradition system to break down and did not require discharge.
4. The power is not unlimited. A district judge must make a fair assessment of all available evidence and determine whether the proceedings serve any purpose. If they do, the judge must consider whether, in the requested person’s particular custodial circumstances, including Convention rights, it would exceptionally be unreasonable or disproportionate to adjourn for six months. If these principles are followed, review is confined to irrationality, subject to illegality and errors concerning Convention rights and proportionality.
5. The fact that surrender may not occur for a lengthy or uncertain period is ordinarily a matter of fact and degree. Practical difficulties facing the issuing authority and mutual trust in extradition matters are relevant. The District Judge’s assessment of the claimant’s family life and psychiatric evidence was open to her, albeit one conclusion was somewhat harsh. The Article 6 complaint was premature, and the abuse-of-process argument added nothing to the substantive challenge.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division), Divisional Court: dismissed the judicial review challenge to the District Judge’s decision of 11 January 2021.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: repeatedly adjourned the extradition proceedings under section 8B of the Extradition Act 2003, most recently for six months on 11 January 2021.