Chaos (Jose Ignacio de Juana) v Kingdom of Spain
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey J |
| Judgment Date | 2012 |
| Neutral Citation | [2012] NIQB 32 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 03 May 2012 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2012] NIQB 32 Ref:
McCL8453
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
03/05/12
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
________
BEFORE A DIVISIONAL COURT
________
Before: Morgan LCJ, Higgins LJ and McCloskey J
________
IN THE MATTER of the Extradition Act 2003
________
BETWEEN:
JOSE IGNACIO de JUANA CHAOS
Appellant:
-and-
KINGDOM OF SPAIN
Respondent:
________
McCLOSKEY J
I INTRODUCTION
[1] Jose Ignacio de Juana Chaos (“the Appellant”), a Spanish national,
appeals to this court against the order of the Recorder of Belfast, dated 1st
March 2010, whereby he acceded to the application of the Kingdom of Spain
(“the Respondent State”) that the Appellant be extradited to that country. In
the language of the Extradition Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”), the Appellant is the
requested person, while the Respondent State is the requesting state.
[2] This is the judgment of the court to which all members have
contributed. The first issue which the judgment addresses was raised at the
2
instigation of the court and was prompted by clear evidence that the
Appellant was in breach of the Recorder’s order granting him bail, had
evidently absconded to a destination unknown and had provided no
instructions to his solicitors since the initiation of the appeal. The background
to this particular issue can be ascertained from an earlier judgment of this
court: see [2010] NIQB 68.
II PRELIMINARY ISSUE: PROSECUTION OF THIS APPEAL
[3] On the date when he made the extradition order, 1st March 2010, the
Recorder, exercising his power under Section 21(4) of the 2003 Act, remanded
the Appellant on bail. The evidence which this court has considered includes
a duly completed “Form 3”, bearing the title “Recognizance of Requested
Person in a Part 1 Extradition Matter”. It is dated 1st March 2010. It has three
signatories and there is no dispute that these are, respectively, the Appellant,
the Governor (or Deputy Governor) of the relevant prison and the Chief Clerk
of the Recorder’s Court. The court was informed that no separate bail order
of the Recorder is in existence. This is unsurprising, given that,
conventionally, orders made in the County Court are not generated
automatically but must be specifically bespoken. It is undisputed that the
executed recognizance reflects the terms of the Recorder’s bail order. It
recites, in relevant part:
“The undersigned Jose Ignacio de Juana Chaos, of
[address], the principal party to this recognizance, hereby
binds himself to perform the following obligations:
1. To surrender himself to the custody of Police
Service for Northern Ireland for the purposes of
extradition on a date to be fixed.
2. In the event of your extradition to the Category 1
territory in which the Part 1 warrant was issued, to
surrender to the custody of the court if so directed
by or on behalf of such court, for the purpose of
extradition.
And upon condition that:
(i) He reports daily to a PSNI station at a time agreed
with the police.
(ii) He resides at an address provided and given to
police.
(iii) Curfew from 8.00am until 7.00am to be lifted to
enable the Defendant to work in [a specified café].
3
(iv) He presents himself at the door as and when police
call.
(v) Any passport or national identity card that can be
used to travel in Europe be surrendered to the
police.
(vi) Defendant not to leave the jurisdiction of Northern
Ireland”.
This court has clearly construed the second of the two “obligations” imposed
on the Appellant by the terms of his bail as referring to the relevant court of
the requesting State, to be contrasted with any court in this jurisdiction.
[4] By Notice of Motion dated 26th April 2010, the Respondent State
applied to this court for an order revoking the Appellant’s bail, committing
him to custody and estreating his recognizance. In moving this application, it
was asserted on behalf of the Respondent State, without challenge, that since
25th March 2010 the Appellant has failed to comply with the first, second and
fourth of the aforementioned conditions. Whether he is also in breach of the
sixth condition is not entirely clear. Counsel for the Appellant confirmed to
the court that the last contact between his client and the solicitors who
continue to represent him occurred on 26th March 2010. In summary, it was
asserted that the Appellant had committed, and continued to commit,
fundamental breaches of the Recorder’s bail order and this is not disputed.
This court gave judgment on 2nd June 2010: see [2010] NIQB 68. Its
conclusions were threefold:
(i) The High Court, which by statute exercises an appellate
function in extradition cases, has no jurisdiction, statutory or
inherent, to revoke the Appellant’s bail, commit him to custody
and estreat his recognizance.
(ii) Following the initiation of the appeal to this court, the Recorder
had no implied statutory power to take any of these measures.
(iii) Provided that the relevant statutory provisions are satisfied, and
subject to the observations of the court in paragraphs [31] and
[33] of the judgment, the Appellant may be liable to be detained,
and prosecuted, via a combination of Part II of the 2003 Order
and Article 26 of PACE.
The Appellant has not been detained by the police and remains at large.
To continue reading
Request your trial
1 cases
-
Artur Krolik, Sylwester Kazmierczak, Piotr Zwolinski, Tomasz Lachowski, Tomasz Soltan, Daniel Walachowski v Several Judicial Authorities of Poland
...of his medical condition where there was plainly a dispute. 38 The Divisional Court of Northern Ireland in Chaos v The Kingdom of Spain [2012] NIQB 32 also dealt with an appeal under the 2003 Act. One of the issues was that the extradition should have been refused on the grounds of "unjust ......