Government of the United States of America v Tobias Bowen

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
JudgeLord Justice Burnett
Judgment Date11 September 2015
Neutral Citation[2015] EWHC 1873 (Admin)
Date11 September 2015
Docket NumberCase No: CO/374/2015

[2015] EWHC 1873 (Admin)




Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL


Lord Justice Burnett

Mrs Justice Thirlwall DBE

Case No: CO/374/2015

Government of the United States of America
Tobias Bowen

Louisa Collins (instructed by Extradition Unit (CPS)) for the Appellant

Malcolm Hawkes (instructed by Leslie Franks Solicitors) for the Respondent

Lord Justice Burnett

On 30 June 2015 we handed down judgment in the appeal of the Government of the United States of America against a decision of the District Judge at Westminster Magistrates' Court of 19 January 2015 whereby she discharged Mr Bowen, whose extradition had been sought. We indicated that we would deal with any application for certification of a point of law of general public importance and application for permission to appeal to the Supreme Court on receipt of written submissions. On 13 July Mr Hawkes, on behalf of Mr Bowen, made those applications in writing. The appeal concerned civil commitment of dangerous sex offenders pursuant to the laws of the State of New York: [2015] EWHC 1873 (Admin). We refused to certify.


At the same time he made a concurrent application "to reopen the determination of the appeal" pursuant to Rule 17.27 of the Criminal Procedure Rules. We invited the Crown Prosecution Service on behalf of the United States to respond to this novel application and are grateful for Miss Collins' written submissions.


We indicated that we would deal with the application on the basis of written submissions.


The essence of the application is that the judgment we gave was in error in a number of respects. The submission advanced, which runs to 105 paragraphs, refers to materials not relied upon by the respondent in resisting the appeal, including evidence which was available to him but which he did not seek to adduce. It repeats arguments advanced in the appeal, some in an augmented form. We say nothing about whether the new evidence could properly have been admitted on the Fenyvesi principles: [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin). We have considered the materials but are unpersuaded that even were they before us the result would have been different. We do not accept that there is any demonstrated injustice. That said, Rule 17.27 is not designed to enable an unsuccessful party in extradition proceedings immediately to regroup after losing the appeal and to return with further developed submissions.


Rule 17.27 provides:


(1) This rule applies where a party wants the High Court to reopen a decision of that court which determines an appeal or an application for permission to appeal.

(2) Such a party must—

(a) apply in writing for permission to reopen that decision, as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the grounds for doing so; and

(b) serve the application on the High Court officer and every other party.

(3) The application must—

(a) specify the decision which the applicant wants the court to reopen; and

(b) give reasons why—

(i) it is necessary for the court to reopen that decision in order to avoid real injustice,

(ii) the circumstances are exceptional and make it appropriate to reopen the decision, and

(iii) there is no alternative effective remedy.

(4) The court must not give permission to reopen a decision unless each other party has had an opportunity to make representations."


The language of rule 17.27(3) mirrors precisely that of Part 52.17 of the Civil Procedure Rules which provides a similar power to reopen a final appeal following determination in the Court of Appeal. In turn, that rule reflects the common law position identified in Taylor v. Lawrence [2002] EWCA Civ 90. The narrow scope of the application of that rule is well-established in the authorities, collected together in the notes to the rule in the White Book.


This court has considered identical language found in section 108(7) of the Extradition Act 2003 as Crim PR 17.27(3)(b)(i) and (ii), which enacted the recommendation of Sir Scott Baker in September 2011 that human rights issues arising at the end of the extradition process in Part 2 cases should be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Tobias Bowen v Secretary of State for Home Department (1st Respondent) The Government of the United States of America (2nd Respondent)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 17 June 2016
    ...article 5 rights and that there was, in any event, no real risk of civil commitment, see [44] of the judgment in Government of the United States of America v. Bowen [2015] EWHC 1873 (Admin) (' Bowen (No.1)'). 7 Following the handing down of the judgment in Bowen No.1, the Appellant sought t......
  • Dempsey v Government of the United States of America
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 13 March 2020
    ...17.27. The ambit of Part 17.27 (as it was then) was considered in detail by this Court in Government of the United States v Bowen [2015] EWHC 1873 (Admin) at [7] to [9]. We adopt that analysis of Part 17.27 as it then was – Part 50.27 as it now is. The requirements in Part 50.27(3)(b) are ......
  • Andras Seprey-Hozo v Law Court of Miercurea Ciuc, Romania
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 17 November 2016
    ...appeal process had come to an end and would give rise all too easily to additional delay…": [34]. 16 United States v. Bowen [2015] EWHC 1873 (Admin) was another Part II case. The application to reopen the appeal was made under a new rule introduced in 2014 in the Criminal Procedure Rules. ......
  • The Government of the United States of America v Roger Alan Giese
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 7 October 2015 in Minnesota (see Sullivan v Government of USA [2012] EWHC 1680 (Admin)) and New York State (see Government of USA v Bowen [2015] EWHC 1873 (Admin)). 4 The questions on this appeal are whether there is a "real risk" that Mr Giese would be made subject to an order for civil commitmen......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT