(1)A fixed-term prisoner is an extradited prisoner for the purposes of this section if—
(a)he was tried for the offence in respect of which his sentence was imposed or he received that sentence —
(i)after having been extradited to the United Kingdom, and
(ii)without having first been restored or had an opportunity of leaving the United Kingdom, and
(b)he was for any period kept in custody while awaiting his extradition to the United Kingdom as mentioned in paragraph (a) , and
(c)the court has specified under section 327(3) of the Sentencing Code the number of days for which the prisoner was so kept in custody.
(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(2A)Section 240ZA applies to days specified under section 327(3) of the Sentencing Code as if they were days for which the prisoner was remanded in custody in connection with the offence or a related offence.
(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cases considering section 243 14
[2023] EWCA Crim 279 · 22 March 2023Interprets
The court interpreted section 243 as applying to qualifying custody connected with the extradition which led to the relevant trial or sentence. It excluded the 2017 in absentia sentence but required specification of the Romanian detention for the 2019 sentence. (see paras [19]-[22]; [30]; [40])
The court treated the definition of an extradited prisoner as requiring trial or sentence after extradition, without restoration or an opportunity to leave, together with custody awaiting that extradition. (see paras [19]; [22])
The post-extradition trial or sentence requirement was treated as a condition of section 243. It was not met by the 2017 sentence imposed in absentia. (see paras [14]; [19])
The court applied the requirement that trial or sentence occur after extradition to the United Kingdom. (see paras [19]; [22])
The court noted the further requirement that the prisoner had not first been restored or given an opportunity to leave the United Kingdom. (see para [22])
Custody awaiting extradition was construed as referring to the extradition which led to the relevant trial. It therefore covered the Romanian custody, not the earlier Irish custody. (see para [22])
The court applied section 243(2) to require specification in open court of the 17 days spent in Romanian custody awaiting extradition for the offences. The omission was corrected on appeal and those days count towards the sentence. (see paras [21]; [30]; [40])
Cited only.
[2021] EWCA Crim 1537 · 6 October 2021
Section 243(2) required the sentencing court to specify the days spent in custody awaiting extradition. The requirement was mandatory, and the court specified 124 days so that credit could be given. (see paras [4]; [5])
[2020] EWCA Crim 732 · 19 May 2020
The court applied the requirement that extradition-detention days be announced in open court. It regularised the omission by specifying 430 days’ detention awaiting extradition (see para [27]).
What each judgment says about section 243 is in the case-law panel in the full Act.
573.This section re-enacts (with some modification) section 47 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Subsection (2) ensures that in the case of an extradited prisoner (as defined by subsections (1)), days spent in custody awaiting extradition may subsequently be subtracted from any custodial sentence passed by the court.