Chaos (Jose Ignacio de Juana) v Kingdom of Spain
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | McCloskey J |
| Judgment Date | 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] NIQB 68 |
| Date | 02 June 2010 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2010] NIQB 68 Ref:
McCL7861
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
02/06/10
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
________
BEFORE A DIVISIONAL COURT
________
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] The High Court, constituted as a Divisional Court, is seised of an application
by the Respondent to revoke the Appellant’s bail, commit him to custody and estreat
his recognizance. The issues determined by this judgment are jurisdictional in
nature. The main question is whether the High Court is empowered to take the
measures requested. If the answer to this question is “no”, the ancillary question is
whether any court or agency is empowered to take measures to secure the
Appellant’s detention, in the circumstances prevailing. The answers to these
questions are not to be found in the Extradition Act 2003 and it became clear at an
2
initial hearing that the court should endeavour give some guidance. All members of
the court have contributed to this judgment.
II RELEVANT FACTUAL MATRIX
[2] In the language of the relevant legislation, the Extradition Act 2003 (“the 2003
Act”), Jose Ignacio de Juana Chaos, the Appellant in the substantive proceedings of
which this court is seised, is the requested person, while the Kingdom of Spain, the
Respondent to the appeal and moving party in the present application, is the
requesting State. They are hereinafter described as “the Appellant” and “the
Respondent” respectively.
[3] By order dated 1st March 2010, the Recorder of Belfast acceded to the
Respondent’s application and ordered that the Appellant be extradited to Spain. By
Notice dated 5th March 2010, the Appellant has exercised his right of appeal to this
court under Section 26 of the 2003 Act. The appeal is scheduled to be heard on 28th
June 2010. The grounds and merits of the appeal are immaterial, for present
purposes.
[4] 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 before the court 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:
To continue reading
Request your trial
10 cases
-
MINISTER for JUSTICE v TOBIN [High Court, Supreme Court]
...Buckley and Others (Sinn Féin) v Attorney General [1950] IR 67; CC v Ireland [2005] IESC 48, [2006] 4 IR 1; Chaos v Kingdom of Spain [2010] NIQB 68, [2010] NI 264; Chief Adjudication Officer v Maguire [1999] 1 WLR 1778; Commissions v Poland (Case C-642/05) [2008] ECR I-4183; Costello v Dir......
-
Min for Justice v Tobin
...ADACH UNREP SUPREME 13.5.2010 2010 IESC 33 EUROPEAN ARREST WARRANT ACT 2003 S13 NOLAN & ANOR v RUSSIA 26 BHRC 341 CHAOS v KINGDOM OF SPAIN 2010 NI 264 2010 NIQB 68 EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 5 EUROPEAN UNION COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 13.6.2002 (EUROPEAN ......
-
A Health and Social Care Trust and MR O and MR R
...ground for his release on bail. [62] The second case referred to me in this context is a decision of McCloskey J in Juana Chaos v Spain [2010] NIQB 68. This was in the context of extradition and the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction in relation to bail. In that case the judge determined......
-
Chaos (Jose Ignacio de Juana) v Kingdom of Spain
...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 ......
Request a trial to view additional results