Chyba v District Court in Strakonice, Czech Republic [Administrative Court]
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 December 2008 |
| Date | 05 December 2008 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
Administrative Court, CO/9622/2008
Scott Baker LJ, McDuff J
B Lloyd (instructed by Lawrence &Co) for C; A Nice (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Czech Judicial Authority.
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a District Judge's decision under s55(6) Extradition Act 2003 to consent to an extradited person being dealt with in the requested state for another offence; whether the prison conditions in the Czech Republic to which C was subjected breached Art 3 ECHR.
A Czech Judicial Authority sought C's extradition pursuant to an European Arrest Warrant to serve a 2-year sentence for attempted rape. C's extradition was ordered and he was surrendered to the Czech Republic. A Judge of the District Court in Strakonice then applied to the Court for C to serve a 3-year sentence relating to another conviction for rape. The specialty rule (ss54-55 Extradition Act 2003) meant that the consent of the UK court was required. Following a hearing, the District Judge gave his consent under s55(6) of the 2003 Act; he rejected C's contention that the prison conditions under which he was serving his present sentence, and under which he would serve the additional sentence, violated Art 3 ECHR. C appealed to the High Court.
Scott Baker LJ:
1. This appellant was the subject of a European Arrest Warrant issued by the District Court in Pribram, Czech Republic. He was surrendered by the UK to that judicial authority on 23 July 2007. The appellant was wanted to serve a 2-year custodial sentence for an offence of attempted rape committed on 7 November 1997. He is presently in the Czech Republic serving that sentence.
2. The present appeal arises out of an application by Judge Kolarova of the District Court in Strakonice that the appellant now serve a 3-year sentence relating to a conviction for a rape committed on 14 August 1999. The conviction on which that 3-year sentence is based is dated 26 February 2001.
3. The British Court's consent is required because of the Specialty Rule, the purport of which is that the person extradited should ordinarily only be dealt with by the extraditing state for those offences for which he was returned, or which are disclosed by the facts on which his surrender was based. But the requesting state is entitled to ask permission for it to deal with the extradited person for another offence not covered by its original request, provided the offence is extraditable. That is what happened here.
4. Article 27 of the Framework Decision is headed "possible prosecution for other offences". It provides in subs(4):
"A request for consent shall be submitted to the executing judicial authority, accompanied by the information mentioned in Art 8(1) and a translation as referred to in Art 8(2). Consent shall be given when the offence for which it is requested is itself subject to surrender in accordance with the provisions of this Framework Decision. Consent shall be refused on the grounds referred to in Art 3 and otherwise may be refused only on the grounds referred to in Art 4. The decision shall be taken no later than 30 days after the receipt of the request. For the situations mentioned in Art 5 the issuing Member State must give the guarantees provided for therein."
5. The relevant UK legislation is to be found in ss54 and 55 of the Extradition Act 2003. Section 54 deals with the request for consent. Section 55 deals with the questions for decision at the consent hearing.
6. On 5 October 2008, in the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court, having gone through all the necessary steps, District Judge Nicholas Evans gave his consent under s55(6). The only issue before the District Judge was the appellant's contention that, were he returned...
To continue reading
Request your trial