Michael Turner v High Court of Dublin, Ireland

The Hamid jurisdiction enables the court to regulate its procedures and enforce the overriding duties owed by legal professionals. It applies across all types of proceedings. Applications to admit fresh evidence in extradition appeals require a full and accurate explanation of why the evidence was unavailable at the extradition hearing and why it would have changed the result. The statutory and procedural thresholds are strict. A judicial review claim cannot be used as an abuse of process to circumvent an unsuccessful extradition appeal or delay surrender. Legal representatives must advance only properly arguable cases, draw material procedural history and authorities to the court’s attention, and avoid wasting court resources. Careless but non-reckless errors may be dealt with by public judicial disapproval, while deliberate or serious misconduct may justify referral to the relevant regulator.

The court considered two referrals under the Hamid jurisdiction. The first arose from an extradition appeal in which Holgate J had refused to admit a psychiatric report as fresh evidence and had dismissed the appeal: [2024] EWHC 1526 (Admin). The representatives had given an incomplete and misleading account of the timing and circumstances in which the report was obtained, including the client’s instructions not to seek an adjournment.

The second arose after Swift J refused permission to challenge an extradition order by judicial review, certified the claim as totally without merit and referred the conduct of the barrister who had drafted it. The claim repeated arguments rejected in the appeal, was out of time and sought to delay extradition. The central issues were whether the representatives’ conduct warranted regulatory referral and what professional duties applied.

1. Turner referral. The application to admit the psychiatric report was deficient and seriously misleading. It failed to explain fully when the need for the report arose, why it had not been obtained earlier, the opportunities to seek postponement, and the client’s instructions not to seek one. Under section 27 of the Extradition Act 2003 and the principles in Szombathely City Court, Hungary v Fenyvesi, evidence is unavailable only if it did not exist or could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence. The court must also be satisfied that the evidence would have produced a different decision requiring discharge. The threshold is strict and the evidence must be decisive.
2. Rule 50.20 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 1998 requires the appeal notice to identify the evidence and explain why it was unavailable and why it would have changed the result. Failure to provide a sufficiently detailed explanation should normally lead to refusal of the application. These requirements protect a fair and properly informed appellate decision and prevent delay and waste.
3. The errors by Ms Priory and Mr Arora were careless, but the court accepted that they were not reckless and were not intended to mislead. Both accepted the criticisms, apologised and had unblemished records. A referral to the Bar Standards Board or the Solicitors Regulation Authority was therefore unnecessary; public disapproval was sufficient.
4. RP referral. The judicial review claim was abusive and bound to fail. The statutory extradition appeal was an adequate and effective alternative remedy, the claim repeated arguments already rejected, was substantially out of time and was advanced to delay surrender. Mr Lixandru had also drafted and filed litigation without apparent authorisation, failed to disclose the prior appeal clearly, advanced a case he considered hopeless, wasted court resources and charged a substantial fee despite recognising that the claim was unlikely to benefit the client.
5. The matters raised by the RP referral were referred to the Bar Standards Board for consideration.

The judgment concerned two Hamid referrals rather than an appeal from the present decision.

• Turner extradition appeal: Holgate J refused to admit the psychiatric report and dismissed the appeal in [2024] EWHC 1526 (Admin), then referred the representatives’ conduct.
• RP extradition proceedings: permission to appeal was refused by Mould J and, on renewal, by Swift J, who certified the judicial review claim as totally without merit and referred the matter under the Hamid jurisdiction.