House of Lords
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836202600406 |
| Published date | 01 October 1962 |
| Date | 01 October 1962 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
House of Lords
FUGITIVE OFFENDERS AND APPEAL JURISDICTION
Zacharia v. Republic
of
Cyprus
AN order was made by
the
Bow Street Magistrates' Court
f\..
under
s. 5 of the Fugitive OffendersAct, 1881,committing
the
appellant, aCypriot, to Brixton Prison pending his return
to Cyprus in respect of warrants
upon
which he
had
previously
been arrested.
The
warrants alleged numerous offences
including two murders.
The
appellant thereupon applied to
the
Divisional Court of
the
Queen's Bench Division for a writ
of habeas corpus and for relief under s. 10 of
the
Fugitive
Offenders Act, 188
I.
That
Court dismissed
the
application
under
both heads and refused leave to appeal. Later leave was
granted by
the
House of Lords.
On
the
hearing of
the
appeal (1962, 2 W.L.R.
II63)
the
question arose whether
the
appeal
under
s. 10 of
the
Act of
188
I,
being in a criminal cause or matter, could be entertained
by the House of Lords notwithstanding
that
no certificate was
asked for or given by
the
court below pursuant to s. I (2) of
the
Administration of Justice Act, 1960,
that
apoint of general
public importance was involved in the decision. By a majority
(Lords Simonds and Hodson dissenting) it was held
that
the
House had jurisdiction to hear
the
appeal merely on leave
granted, for
the
court's powers to grant relief
under
s. 10
were an adjunct to its power to protect by habeas corpus.
Accordingly, where, as in this case, an application for the writ
was joined with proceedings under s. 10,
the
provision of
s. 15 (3) of the Administration of Justice Act, 1960,
that
struck
out
the
statutory restriction on the grant of leave to appeal
applied to both forms of proceedings.
In
fact
Lord
Devlin
went further and said
that
on an application for habeas corpus
only a superior court can exercise its powers
under
s. 10 of the
Fugitive Offenders Act.
This
appeal had political significance
but
the House of
Lords made it quite clear that any court acting
under
s.
lois
confined to the considerations of which it is there directed to
take account; whether the alleged offences are, or were, of a
286
To continue reading
Request your trial