R ABUBAKAB BAGUDU v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Attorney General for JERSEY and REPUBLIC of NIGERIA
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE SILBER |
| Judgment Date | 08 September 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWHC 2229 (Admin) |
| Date | 08 September 2003 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/4208/03 |
[2003] EWHC 2229 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Mr Justice Silber
CO/4208/03
MR J LEWIS QC & MR J KNOWLES (instructed by BYRNE & PARTNERS, 1 Sekforde Street, London EC1R OBE) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT
MR K QUERESHI (instructed by THE TREASURY SOLICITORS) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
MR D. O'MAHONEY (instructed by ORCHARDS, 6 Snowhill, London EC1A 2AY) appeared on behalf of HM Attorney General of Jersey, an Interested Party
MR P GARLICK QC (instructed by Monfrini Bottge, 3 Place du Molad, 1204 Geneva) appeared on behalf of the Republic of Nigeria
I have had the great benefit of listening to admirable arguments that have been put forward, I have come to the conclusion that I ought to give permission on the issue that has been argued. I would like your help in isolating the issue because I think the issue is whether the making of the extradition request by the defendant was unlawful because the crimes for which the extradition is sought are not extradition offences. Does that put it sufficiently clearly?
It does, my Lord, yes.
Does anybody want to say anything about the wording of it?
I am content with that.
It seems to me there is absolutely no point in giving permission or your second issue —
None at all.
—because if you lose on the first one you automatically lose on the second, so nothing will be gained on that.
The applicant is in custody, is he not?
My Lord, he is in Texas.
The sooner this comes on the better and I will order expedition.
I am obliged.
Your junior seems to have something that he wants to tell you.
He is probably urging me to ask for interim relief. (Instructions taken.) My Lord, I am told the hearing in America is 17th September.
Yes.
It would be better if obviously this could be resolved before that hearing. There is nothing your Lordship can say to order that.
There is nothing I can do that will deal with that at all, but I would imagine in a case of this sort that if this order with the order that I have made, the chances must be that the case in America will be adjourned too.
My Lord, it is almost bound to be adjourned. I know that my learned friend for Jersey and the Secretary of State will pass on your Lordship's comments. It seems inevitable that it is better to resolve this position first in this court.
I will order expedition.
My Lord, that is right.
My Lord, I should say, given the way that your Lordship has framed the question, that it is and remains the position of the Attorney General for Jersey that whether or not this is an extradition crime will be decided in the ordinary course when Mr Bagudu, if this happens, comes back to Jersey and it will be the Royal Court in Jersey who would ordinarily decide.
But the issue is that it is a point that can also be looked at on the judicial review application.
My Lord, yes, it was just to make that clear given the terms in which your Lordship framed the question.
I am just content for your Lordship to order expedition.
I must say I looked at your request for interim relief and I found it extremely difficult to see how you were going to succeed on those.
My Lord, I do not think —
So we will order expedition.
Can I talk about timing, how long this is going to take? Because it is a very short issue, is it not?
It is not going to take a lot more —it can be dealt with in half a day.
I would have thought so. Certainly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
David Wong Ken and Others v National Investment Bank of Jamaica and Others
...to have regard to the facts and issues of the substantive case which is R (ota Watts) v Bedford Primary Care Trust and anor [2003] EWHC 2229 (Admin) (1stOctober 2003); [2003] All ER (D) 20 (Oct). 5 The facts of the main judgment were that the claimant required a medical procedure but becau......