MAREK KURTA v REGIONAL COURT POZNAN (POLAND)

Directions affecting extradition appeals have the status of court orders only when made by a judge or by an authorised court officer acting under the applicable rules. A failure to comply with reasonable administrative requests is materially different from breach of a valid court order. A strike-out order based on non-compliance with directions lacking that status cannot stand.

Renewal notices must explain the grounds for renewal and engage with the reasons for refusing permission. Compliant hearing bundles should also be filed where directed under the Criminal Procedure Rules.

The court considered applications by Marek Kurta and Asad Al-Jaban to set aside orders striking out their renewed applications for permission to appeal against extradition orders. Turner J had struck out both applications after the appellants’ solicitors failed to file compliant renewal hearing bundles following letters from the Administrative Court Office.

The central issue was whether those letters contained valid court directions, and whether their non-compliance justified strike-out. It emerged that neither the signatory nor the Court Manager was authorised under section 67B of the Courts Act 2003.

1. Applications allowed. The orders made by Turner J on 17 May 2022 striking out the renewed applications for permission to appeal were set aside. The renewed applications were to be heard by another judge as soon as reasonably practicable.
2. Under Part 2.6 and Part 2.4(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Rules, directions concerning the lodging and form of bundles may be given by an authorised court officer. The relevant officers were not authorised under section 67B of the Courts Act 2003. The letters therefore did not have the status of court orders.
3. There was a principled distinction between failing to comply with reasonable administrative requests from the Administrative Court Office and breaching a court order. Turner J’s strike-out orders had proceeded on the mistaken basis that valid directions had been breached and could not stand.
4. The court did not determine whether it would be fair to hold the appellants responsible for their solicitors’ failures, nor the merits of the proposed permission applications. Those issues were unnecessary once the invalidity of the directions was established.
5. Renewal applications must comply with Crim PR 50.22. A renewal notice must explain the grounds for renewal and engage with the reasons given for refusing permission. A compliant renewal bundle assists the court in dealing with the application justly and expeditiously. Future directions were to be made under Crim PR 2.6 and complied with unless varied or set aside.

• High Court, Administrative Court: Turner J struck out both renewed applications for permission to appeal on 17 May 2022 for failure to comply with renewal-bundle directions.
• Divisional Court: The applications to set aside those orders were allowed. The renewed applications were directed to be heard by another judge.