James Bradstock v High Court Dublin The National Crime Agency (Interested Party)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Burnett,Mr Justice Collins |
| Judgment Date | 27 July 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWHC 2560 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/868/2016 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 27 July 2016 |
[2016] EWHC 2560 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Burnett
Mr Justice Collins
CO/868/2016
Mr Joel Smith (instructed by Tuckers Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr Brian Gibbins (instructed by the CPS Extradition Unit) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
The Interested Party did not attend and was not represented
On 12 February 2016 District Judge Snow ordered the appellant's extradition to Ireland. This is his appeal brought with leave on two grounds: first, that the district judge should have adjourned the extradition hearing for up to seven days to allow the Irish Judicial Authority, which was the High Court in Dublin, to consider whether to agree to his temporary surrender pursuant to section 21B of the Extradition Act 2003; secondly, that his extradition was barred because it was disproportionate for the purposes of section 21A(3) of the 2003 Act. I should say that the issues that were to be pursued centred upon whether "less coercive measures were available" for the purposes of that statutory provision, and, more generally, whether there should be temporary surrender to Ireland.
Matters have moved on. The appellant, Mr Bradstock, is keen now to organise surrender voluntarily to the Irish authorities. Mr Smith, who appears this morning on his behalf in these proceedings, has indicated that the appeal will not be pursued. By that, I understand him to mean that he has no submissions which he wishes to advance on behalf of the appellant to support the grounds upon which permission was granted.
In my judgment, that is an entirely responsible course. Without going into the detail of the case, still less the reasoning of the district judge, it is now clear that the judgment of the district judge was correct on both of the issues which were raised in this appeal. I think it is sufficient to say that if one looks at the statutory provisions, in the light in particular of three decisions of this court, on analysis the appeal turns out to be hopeless. Those decisions are Duncan v Presiding Magistrate, Malaga, Spain [2015] EWHC 3466 (Admin); [2016] 1 WLR 1351; Miraszewski & Ors v District Court in Torun, Poland [2014] EWHC 4261 (Admin)...
To continue reading
Request your trial