Krzyzstof Skraba v Regional Court in Nowy Sacz Poland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice King |
| Judgment Date | 03 July 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 2193 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/834/2014 |
| Date | 03 July 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 2193 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
(EXTRADITION)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Honourable Mr Justice King
Case No: CO/834/2014
Miss Kate O'Raghallaigh (instructed by Lansbury Worthington) for the Appellant
Miss Kathryn Howarth (instructed on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: Wednesday 14 th May 2014
On the 14 th of May 2014 I heard the Appellant's appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 (the Act) against the decision of District Judge McPhee sitting in the Westminster Magistrates Court on the 19 th February 2014 ordering the Appellant's extradition to Poland pursuant to an European Arrest Warrant to face prosecution for offences of robbery and assault. Part 1 of the Act applies to these proceedings.
I dismissed that appeal for reasons given in a judgment delivered that day at the close of submissions.
Also before me as part of the statutory appeal against the extradition order was a purported appeal against an order for costs made by the District Judge against the Appellant under section 60 of the Act. The order was in the sum of £500 to be paid within 14 days. It was made subsequent to the extradition hearing, and following a separate hearing during which the District Judge delivered his judgment and ordered extradition.
This purported statutory appeal against the order for costs, raised a preliminary jurisdictional issue as to the existence of any power the court has, when hearing an appeal under section 26, to review any such costs order.
In anticipation of a possible ruling that this court has no power to entertain any challenge to a s 60 costs order by way of the statutory appeal process, the Appellant in his Appeal Notice invited the court, if necessary, to treat this challenge as if it were a challenge brought by way of a claim for judicial review and to treat the grounds of appeal against the order as grounds in support of an application for permission. Miss O'Raghallaigh on behalf of the Appellant invited me in the event of my making such a ruling, to dispense with all procedural formalities and on conclusion of the statutory appeal against extradition, to move straightaway to a rolled up hearing going both to the application for permission and if granted, the substantive claim for relief.
In the event I announced at the conclusion of the hearing that for reasons which would be given later, to include my ruling on the jurisdictional issue, I would make an order varying the costs order made under section 60 by making an order that the Appellant do pay costs of £100 payable within 14 days.
I accordingly now proceed to give my reasons.
Introduction
A costs order made in extradition proceedings against the requested person has hitherto been a very rare animal and in consequence there has to date been little authority in which challenges to such orders have been considered by any higher court. My attention was drawn only to the judgment of Nicol J in Sachanek v Poland [2014] EWHC 510 (Admin) to which I refer below, and to some short general observations by Collins J about the making of such orders made in Mencwel v Regional Court in Poznan Poland [2013] EWHC 1513 (Admin) at paragraph 5. I observe that in the latter case Collins J's immediate reaction appears to have been against the making of such orders as a normal consequence of an unsuccessful contesting of extradition on the part of the requested person. Mencwel however was a case in which a costs order was threatened but not in fact made and Collins J's comments must be seen in this light. His observations were in these terms:
'5. The District judge took a robust view of the circumstances put before him which were said to be a bar to extradition. He said it was a typical case of non existent grounds and very flimsy arguments to resist it. He made a point that the court as from April this year will consider ordering costs against requested persons who pointlessly resist extradition in this way. I note that. It is a jurisdiction which no doubt the court has but it is one which in the face of it should be exercised with greatest possible care;'
However I was told that since January of this year (2014) costs orders against requested persons whose extradition has been ordered, have now become something of the norm. Hence both the jurisdictional and merits issues raised in this appeal have taken on a significance of some importance for future challenges against such orders. This change in frequency is a result of a change in policy on the part of the Crown Prosecution Service who appear in the court to conduct extradition proceedings on behalf of the Requesting State, or rather the Judicial Authority of the Requesting State which issued the warrant ('the issuing Judicial Authority').
I was provided with a copy of a document headed 'CPS Policy On Claiming Costs in Extradition Cases'. Its opening paragraph reads:
'With effect from 1 January 2014 the Crown Prosecution Service will apply the following policy to claiming costs in extradition proceedings, the effect of the policy will be that an application for costs against the requested person will be made in the vast majority of proceedings in which extradition is ordered'
The document then goes on to set out principles relied on for the making of such an application, an explanation as to how costs will be calculated and an applicable scale of costs by reference to which an application will be sought in any given case. It makes clear that in the ordinary case what is being sought is only a contribution to the actual costs incurred in conducting the proceedings. I deal further with the contents of this Guidance in the 'Merits' part of this judgment.
The only other extradition authority on costs to which I was referred, namely Siemilet v Westminster Magistrates Court (Administrative Court 27 November 2012) concerned judicial review proceedings in which a European Arrest Warrant had been withdrawn, (in other words proceedings in which discharge was ordered and hence no question of a statutory appeal under section 26 arose), and the requested person unsuccessfully sought to challenge the refusal to make a costs order in his favour out of central funds under section 61(2) of the Act. The District Judge in that case had referred to his 'usual practice' of not awarding costs where extradition proceedings had been compromised. Mitting J ruled that the claim was out of time but appears also to have dismissed it on its merits on the grounds that there was no presumption in section 61 in favour of a discharged person in the circumstances of a discharge and the District Judge's decision was neither unlawful nor irrational. I say this 'appears' to have been the decision since I was presented only with a Westlaw Case Digest of what was said to be an unreported case.
The Jurisdictional Issue
I turn to consider the jurisdictional issue.
The costs order in this case was made under section 60 of the Act. This provides as follows:
'60. Costs where extradition is ordered
(1) This section applies if any of the following occurs in relation to a person in respect of whom a Part 1 warrant is issued—
(a) an order for the person's extradition is made under this Part;
(b) the High Court dismisses an appeal under section 26;
(c) the High Court or the Supreme Court dismisses an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under section 32, if the application is made by the person;
(d) the Supreme Court dismisses an appeal under section 32, if the Appeal is brought by the person.
(2) In a case falling within subsection (1)(a), the appropriate judge may make such order as he considers just and reasonable with regard to costs to be paid by the person.
(3) In a case falling within subsection (1)(b), (c) or (d), the court by which the application or appeal is dismissed may make such order as it considers just and reasonable with regard to the costs to be paid by the person.
(4) an order for costs under this section –
(a) must specify their amount;
(b) may name the person to whom they are to be paid'
An analogous power to award costs in favour of the requested person where discharge is ordered is provided in section 61 of the Act. This provides:
'61. Costs where discharge is ordered
(1) This section applies if any of the following occurs in relation to a person in respect of whom a Part 1 warrant is issued—
(a) an order for the person's discharge is made under this Part;
(b) the person is taken to be discharged under this Part
(c) the High Court dismisses an appeal under section 28;
(d) the High Court or the Supreme Court dismisses an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under section 32, if the application is made by the authority which issued the warrant;
(e) the Supreme Court dismisses an appeal under section 32, if the application is made by the authority which issued the warrant;
(2) In a case falling within subsection (1)(a), an order under subsection (5) may be made by—
(a) the appropriate judge if the order for the person's discharge is made by him;
(b) the High Court, if the order for the person's discharge is made by it;
(d) the Supreme Court, if the order for the person's discharge is made by it;
(3) In a case falling within subsection (1)(b), the appropriate judge may make an order under subsection (5) in favour of the person.
(4) in a case falling within subsection (1)(c), (d) or (e)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aleksander Bizunowicz and Another v District Court in Koszalin (Poland) and Another
...the court may make such order as to the costs to be paid by the accused to the prosecutor as it considers just and reasonable. 1 [2014] EWHC 2193 (Admin) 2 [16] of Skraba. 3 [21]. 4 [22] 5 The wording of that section is set out at the end of the Appendix to this judgment. 6 [2000] 2 Cr App......