Atanasova v The Republic of Bulgaria
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Cranston J,Scott Baker LJ |
| Judgment Date | 04 November 2009 |
| Neutral Citation | [2009] EWHC 2740 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/9998/2008,Case No: C0/9998/2008 |
| Date | 04 November 2009 |
[2009] EWHC 2740 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Before: Lxord Justice Scott Baker
Mr Justice Cranston
Case No: C0/9998/2008
Ben Watson (instructed by Hallinan, Blackburn, Gittings & Nott) for the Applicant
John Hardy QC (Instructed by the Court Prosecution Service) for the 2nd Respondent
Hearing date: 9 October 2009
Lord Justice Scott Baker:
This is the judgment of the court.
The applicant challenges the decision of District Judge Purdy sitting in the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court on 19 May 2008 committing her to await the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department following a request by the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria received in the United Kingdom as long ago as 2001, and a warrant for her arrest issued on 13 November 2001 in the Bow Street Magistrates' Court in relation to three offences namely murder, manslaughter and theft.
The application before the court is for habeas corpus. The request for extradition pre-dates the Extradition Act 2003 and the case is therefore governed by the Extradition Act 1989.
The case has features that are both strange and unusual, not least that the applicant is the former private secretary to the Bulgarian General Prosecutor, a man called Filchev, whose activities in a number of respects have led, in various circles, to allegations of serious misconduct.
The applicant is accused, with others, of murdering another legal assistant of Filchev, Ms Georgieva. The death of Ms Georgieva occurred late in February 2000. The extradition request is dated 16 July 2001. The applicant fled Bulgaria on 17 August 2000 because, she says, of threats to her life by Filchev. She claimed asylum here in October 2003 but that claim remains undetermined. She was arrested pursuant to the warrant on 21 November 2007.
Section 11(3) of the Extradition Act 1989 provides:
“Without prejudice to any jurisdiction of the High Court apart from this section, the court shall order the applicant's discharge if it appears to the court in relation to the offence, or each of the offences, in respect of which the applicant's return is sought, that:………
(b) by reason of the passage of time since he is alleged to have committed it or to have become lawfully at large, as the case may be; or
(c) because the accusation against him is not made in good faith in the interests of justice,
it would, having regard to all the circumstances, be unjust or oppressive to return him.”
The applicant's case is based on (i) bad faith and (ii) the passage of time, the main focus of the argument being on bad faith. If either ground is made out on the balance of probabilities the applicant must be discharged.
The applicant's case is supported by two lengthy witness statements, one by the applicant running to 172 paragraphs, the other by Victor Banev, an advocate in private practice in Sofia, Bulgaria, who acts in Bulgaria for one of the applicant's co-accused, namely her former husband Plamen Kalaydzhiev. The Bulgarian Government has not sought to file any evidence in reply to these statements. Parts of the applicant's statement have been redacted but Mr Watson, who has appeared for her, has not sought to rely on those parts and it has, in the circumstances, been unnecessary for the court to consider whether it would be appropriate to look at them.
In very brief summary what the applicant says is as follows. Under the Bulgarian constitution, Filchev, as the former General Prosecutor, was the most powerful man in the country, and immune from prosecution. She claims he is corrupt and dangerous and that he is presently being investigated at the highest levels. Further, he knows she could give damning evidence against him. For this reason he has terrorised her and if he ever finds out where she is she is sure he will see that she is murdered.
Filchev took over as General Prosecutor of Bulgaria in February 1999 and, having worked for his predecessor, the applicant then took over as his private secretary. She describes him as intimidating and forceful and says that he interfered with secret files, destroyed evidence from them and activated bugging devices in prosecutors' offices. He had close links with the mafia whose senior members used to visit him.
The applicant tried to distance herself from Filchev and moved to be in charge of administration to get away from him but he still treated her as his private secretary. In March 1999 there was an incident involving two prosecutors Kolev and Jambov, whom Filchev threatened to kill if they did not close files on cases that involved the transfer of a lot of money to a foreign bank and an investigation into missing weapons. They were threatened with death and the applicant, who had witnessed his threats, was threatened that if she disclosed anything of what she had seen or heard she would be sorry for the rest of her life. Later, he wanted to know what she had said to the two prosecutors and threatened her with a hand grenade. Although she promised she had told them nothing he persistently threatened her thereafter over a period of months. She resigned her post in the autumn of 1999. After her resignation she received an approach from a third party suggesting her life would be a nightmare if she did not work again for Filchev. This was followed by aggressive calls from Filchev himself and then anonymous calls and other forms of harassment. When she reported the harassment to the police Filchev intervened and threatened her with a pistol. The following day she was visited at home by two men in civilian clothes, beaten up and told not to say anything against Filchev. As a result of this the applicant suffered four broken ribs, liver and kidney damage and other injuries.
In early 2000, a lawyer Nadejda Georgieva, whom the applicant had got to know when she worked for Filchev, invited the applicant to her flat. She told the applicant she was in danger and showed her some hi-tech bugging equipment. Then she played tapes of conversations with Filchev which she had secretly recorded saying they were her insurance policy as she feared Filchev was blackmailing her. The applicant says Gerogieva later told her she had told Filchev about playing the tapes. She believes that the two prosecutors asked for the tapes and were given them.
The two prosecutors continued to investigate Filchev. At a press conference in February 2000, at which some international media were present, they produced evidence about his illegal activities and abuse of power.
At the end of February 2000 Georgieva was murdered in her flat. In early March 2000 the applicant went voluntarily to the police to tell them what she knew of Georgieva. She says that as soon as she mentioned Filchev the police officers attitude to her changed. She described what happened thus:
“I was taken to a room and shown many photographs of Nadejda which had been taken after her murder……I was then interrogated about my knowledge of Nadejda and my whereabouts on the night of her murder. I was fingerprinted and had hair and saliva samples taken. At the time I was told it was to eliminate me from their inquiries. I was asked to take a lie detector test, which I agreed to because I thought it would prove what I was saying about Filchev. However, it was horrendous. I was made to sit opposite a panel of about 10 or 11 people with a lamp shining in my face. They terrorised me. If they did not like the answers I gave, they kept repeating the question over and over again. They would not accept what I was saying. This went on for a long time, all the time with this bright light shining in my face. In particular, they kept asking me whether I knew how Nadejda had been killed and demanding that I answer “yes” or “no”. This was a trick question because I had just been told and shown how Nadejda had been killed and each time I tried to explain this they became more aggressive towards me.
At one point Mr Oleg Ianchev, the investigator in charge, threw a chair at me and I screamed. I started to feel very bad, very sick. They insulted me and threatened me. I was made to sit there for hours. They would not let me go to the toilet and said I could “piss on the chair”. It was very painful for me because I suffer from kidney problems. They said such unpleasant things to me, telling me if I wanted to go I could jump out of the window. We were on the sixth floor of the building. As well as being verbally abusive to me, they also physically abused me; Mr Oleg took a stool that was in the room and smashed it against my knee. He was shouting at me angrily, spitting all over me as he shouted. When I answered one of their questions, they twisted my words and threatened me and insinuated I that was responsible for the murder of Nadejda. I begged them for water but they gave me nothing during the whole time I was held there. My lips and mouth were so dry.
At about midnight Filchev appeared at the door of the room I was being held in. I was so scared when I saw him, I had a panic attack. It was the end of me mentally. Filchev asked the guard in the room not to let anyone else come in. Filchev took out his pistol and placed it on the desk on the room. He played with it on the table. He asked if I realised who I was dealing with, why I did not understand and said that I needed to be taught a lesson. He shouted that I was nobody and nobody would take my words against his. I was so frightened; I was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leroy King Claimant v [1] The Attorney General [2] Minister of Foreign Affairs Defendants
...Arorangi Timberland Ltd v Minister of the Cook Islands national Superannuation Fund [2016] UKPC 32 4. Atanasova v Holloway & Amor [2009] EWHC 2740 (Admin) 5. Attorney General v Issac ANU HCVAP 2015/0014 6. Attorney General of Barbados v Joseph and Boyce [2006] CCJ 3 (AJ) , 87 WIR 178 7. B......