Guzeloglu v Government of the Republic of Turkey

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Justice Pitchford,Mr Justice Openshaw
Judgment Date17 October 2012
Neutral Citation[2012] EWHC 3238 (Admin)
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Docket NumberCO/9426/2012
Date17 October 2012

[2012] EWHC 3238 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London WC2A 2LL

Before:

Lord Justice Pitchford

Mr Justice Openshaw

CO/9426/2012

Between:
Guzeloglu
Appellant
and
Government of the Republic of Turkey
Respondent

Mr D Jones (instructed by Criminal Defence Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant

Mr D Sternberg (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the Respondent

Lord Justice Pitchford
1

On 21 September 1998, the appellant, who is now aged 47, lodged a divorce petition to the Civil Court of First Instance in Turkoglu in Turkey. It was subsequently the prosecution case in a criminal hearing that it was represented in the petition that the appellant's wife was living in Turkey; she was not, she was living in the United Kingdom. It was represented that the court process had been received by the wife; it had not. The signature purportedly of the wife was false. That was proved by expert handwriting evidence. The address for service given by the appellant in the document was in fact the address of his aunt and brother-in-law. As a result of the petition and representations made, a divorce was pronounced on 3 November 1998.

2

On 29 May 2003, the criminal court in Kahramanmaras convicted the appellant in his absence of an offence, the equivalent in this country of perverting the course of justice, and sentenced him to 3 years, 10 months and 20 days' imprisonment. That sentence was confirmed by the Criminal Circuit Court of Cassation on 26 January 2005. On 6 July of the same year, the Kahramanmaras court reduced the sentence to 3 years, 1 month and 15 days and ordered that the sentence should be executed.

3

On 31 January 2011, Turkey, which is a Part 2 territory for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003, issued a request for extradition. On 2 March 2011, an arrest warrant was issued by District Judge Evans and the appellant was arrested on 12 July 2011. Extradition proceedings were opened that day before District Judge Zani. Bail was at first refused until, on 20 July, bail was granted with conditions. A full hearing was listed for 18 August 2011. That date was vacated. The matter came before District Judge Purdy on 25 October 2011, when the appellant gave oral evidence. Issues were identified, but again the case was adjourned to enable the appellant to obtain medical evidence for reasons to which I shall refer in a moment. On 24 January 2012, the district judge learned that the appellant has been fitted with a pacemaker. The case was again adjourned for clarification of his drug regime. In the absence of the required medical evidence, the final submissions were received on 27 April 2011.

4

Lastly, at the final moment available, Mr Daniel Jones, who had been instructed under the Direct Access arrangements pro bono, persuaded the district judge to reopen submissions. Those submissions were received on the day on which judgment was going to be given, that is to say on 8 June 2012. Judgment was eventually given after consideration by District Judge Purdy on 12 July.

5

I shall summarise the appellant's evidence. I do this with the awareness that the court does not have notes of evidence taken in the magistrates' court and without the benefit of any witness statement. The appellant gave evidence that he was a Kurd. He came from a family of political activists. He married in Turkey in 1989. He and his wife left Turkey for the United Kingdom on 1 June 1989 and claimed asylum. His application was later withdrawn after he was granted leave to remain on other grounds which are unspecified in the material before us.

6

In 1998, husband and wife decided that they would divorce. The appellant was cautioned in the United Kingdom for making a threat to kill his wife and children and his wife applied successfully for a non-molestation order. He travelled on three occasions to Turkey: in 1998 and 2000 for the purpose of making arrangements for their divorce, and in 2001 to make a family visit. As he was attempting to leave Turkey in 2001, he was arrested and kept in custody until released on bail some three months later. According to the appellant, his legal representative told him that he was free to leave Turkey; he, the lawyer, would look after the trial in his absence.

7

The appellant returned to the United Kingdom where he has remained ever since. The appellant claimed to be unaware of the progress of the prosecution against him in Turkey. Later in his evidence, however, he conceded that he knew and expected that the lawyer would represent him both at his trial and on appeal. More recently, the appellant was diagnosed as a diabetic. He required a pacemaker for his heart, and drugs. That pacemaker was fitted on 16 January 2012 at St Mary's Hospital, Paddington, by the same consultant cardiologist who had treated his two cousins for a similar condition.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • The Russian Federation v Olessia Fotinova
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 26 March 2013
    ...a realistic opportunity to advance his case under sections 87 and 91 of the 2003 Act by relying upon the evidence of experts (see [2012] EWHC 3238 (Admin)). The appellant has chosen not to adduce further evidence as to his physical health and for the first time raises as an issue the fragil......

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