R v Choudhry Hussain

Where a person is extradited for specified offences, the Crown Court may try a different offence only if the conditions in the Extradition Act 2003 section 151 A are met. If the offence was absent from the extradition request and the requested State’s consent was not obtained, the court has no jurisdiction. A guilty plea cannot validate the proceedings. The resulting conviction is a nullity and may be quashed after an extension of time.

The appellant had been extradited from Pakistan after being convicted in his absence of serious offences. After his return, he pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Manchester to an offence under section 6 of the Bail Act, arising from his failure to surrender to bail during his earlier trial. He received eight months’ consecutive imprisonment.

On the Registrar’s referral, the Court considered extensions of time and whether the Crown Court had jurisdiction. The Bail Act offence had not been included in the extradition request, and the requested State’s consent to prosecute it had not been sought. The Crown conceded that the conviction was a nullity.

Disposition. The court granted the necessary extensions of time, allowed the appeal against conviction, permitted the appellant to vacate his guilty plea, and quashed the conviction as a nullity. The appeal against sentence did not need to be pursued, although the court stated that it would also have succeeded.

1. The jurisdictional conditions in section 151 A of the Extradition Act 2003 were not satisfied. The Bail Act offence was neither an offence for which extradition had been sought or granted nor an offence for which the requested State’s consent to prosecution had been obtained.
2. Applying the effect of R v Seddon [2009] EWCA Crim 483 and R v Shepherd [2019] EWCA Crim 1062; [2019] 2 Cr App R 26, the Crown Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the failure-to-surrender offence.
3. The absence of jurisdiction meant that the conviction was a nullity. The appellant’s guilty plea did not cure that fundamental defect. The court could therefore extend time, allow the plea to be vacated, and quash the conviction.
4. The court also noted that the appellant’s time in custody in Pakistan exceeded the sentence imposed for the Bail Act offence, and that the sentencing appeal would have succeeded. A representation order was granted for the work undertaken on the successful conviction appeal.

Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The Registrar referred applications for extensions of time. The court granted the extensions, allowed the conviction appeal, permitted the guilty plea to be vacated, and quashed the conviction as a nullity.

Crown Court at Manchester (Minshull Street): The appellant pleaded guilty on 29 January 2020 to the Bail Act offence and was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment consecutive to an earlier 19-year term. The Court of Appeal held that the Crown Court had no jurisdiction.