Olah v Regional Court in Plzen, Czech Republic
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE MOSES,MR JUSTICE BLAKE |
| Judgment Date | 04 July 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWHC 2701 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/5415/2008 |
| Date | 04 July 2008 |
[2008] EWHC 2701 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Moses
Mr Justice Blake
CO/5415/2008
Mr Jones appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Miss Barnes appeared on behalf of the Defendant
This is, in form, an appeal under the Extradition Act 2003 against a decision of District Judge Evans on 3 June 2008 whereby he ordered the extradition of Josef Olah to the Czech Republic to serve a term of imprisonment of 2 years for offences of sexual assault, as set out in a European arrest warrant issued on 10 April 2008 and certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 15 May 2008.
This appellant was arrested on the warrant on 21 May 2008. The first hearing, pursuant to Section 7, took place on 22 May and, since he did not consent to his extradition, he was remanded in custody and a hearing took place on 3 June 2008, an earlier hearing having been adjourned so that an interpreter could be found. At the extradition hearing before District Judge Evans counsel appearing for the appellant suggested that there might be available an argument under Section 25 of the 2003 Act whereby a judge is required to order a person's discharge or adjourn an extradition hearing if the physical or mental condition of someone subjected to a Part 1 warrant is such that it would be unjust or oppressive to extradite him (see Section 25 (1) to (3) of the 2003 Act).
Counsel instructed by the appellant had seen him the day before, and counsel told the judge that both the solicitors and he had had great difficulties in taking instructions since the appellant was excessively vague about dates, appeared to become easily confused, was uncertain of the stages of the trial in the Czech Republic which he had attended and could not tell them his mother's address or contact details.
In those circumstances counsel requested from the judge an adjournment so that a psychiatric report could be prepared with the view to determining whether it would be open to the appellant to found an argument based on Section 25. This request is noted in notes made by the clerk to the court. We also note that the position of those appearing on behalf of the requesting state was, as one would expect, responsible. They made it clear that they appreciated the concerns of the appellant. It is recorded that the submission was that they would not wish to stand in the appellant's way.
The judge however took the view that in the light of the fact that the appellant had been in this country for four years and appeared to have had no dealings with psychiatric institutions in this country, there was no evidence to found an application on 3 June 2008 under Section 25 and any attempt to see a psychiatrist would be what he described as a fishing expedition. He then proceeded to consider the other grounds upon which expedition was resisted which I need not detail because they are now abandoned.
In my view it was wrong of the judge to refuse the adjournment. The time frame which I have already identified shows that the appellant had had no reasonable opportunity to marshall psychiatric evidence before the hearing on 3 June. There was no basis for saying that the application therefore was obviously bogus by reason of the fact that the opportunity that had presented itself to legal advisers to obtain psychiatric evidence had not been obtained. Of course questions of adjournment are peculiarly for the tribunal before which the application is made. This court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Prosecutor's Office of Latvia and Maris Ancevskis and in the matter of an application by Maris Ancevskis for leave to apply for Judicial Review [Latvia v Ancevskis No.2]
...emanating from the jurisdiction of England and Wales. In the first of these cases, Olah v Regional Court in Plzen, Czech Republic [2008] EWHC 2701 (admin), there is a strong parallel with the present case. There the requested person’s appeal against the extradition order was based on the Di......
-
Public Prosecutor's Office, Court of Appeal of Thessaloniki, Hellenic Republic v Florjan Hysa
...should be by way of judicial review, not by way of an appeal under EA 2003, ss 28 and 29. See, for example, Olah v Czech Republic [2008] EWHC 2701 (Admin) (Moses LJ and Blake J) at paragraph 8, and R (Slavik) v Slovak Republic [2011] EWHC 265 (Admin), at paragraph 20, per Ouseley J. This ......
-
Herdman and Others v Deputy Public Prosecutor Appeal Court of Crete, Greece
...it was presented to her, and not on the extended ambit of further points taken on appeal. 18 Reliance has been placed on Olah v Regional Court in Plzen, Czech Republic [2008] EWHC 2701 (Admin), a claim for judicial review in which Moses LJ, with whom Blake J agreed, stated at [8]: “Section ......
-
Tomasz Celczynski v Polish Judical Authority
...During the course of his oral submissions Mr Joyes drew attention to the decision of the Divisional Court in the case of Olah v Regional Court in Plzen Czech Republic [2008] EWHC 2701 (Admin). In that case the District Judge refused an adjournment in circumstances which the court concluded......