R (Bergman) v District Court of Kladno, Czech Republic
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Irwin J |
| Judgment Date | 28 January 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] EWHC 267 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/10197/2010 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 28 January 2011 |
[2011] EWHC 267 (Admin)
Before: MR JUSTICE IRWIN
CO/10197/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
The Claimant appeared in person
MR M GRANDISON appeared on behalf of the Defendant
MR JUSTICE IRWIN: The factual background to this case is as follows. Mr Bergman is a Czech citizen. He was born in 1981. In 2003 he was found guilty of fraud offences in the Czech Republic. On 23 July 2004 there was, according to the documentation, a judgment as to his guilt. On 20 October of that year a sentence of 20-months' conditional imprisonment was passed on him. In the year 2005 the applicant left the Czech Republic. On 8 August 2007 the judgment was altered, changing conditional imprisonment to unconditional imprisonment, meaning that the period had to be served.
On 22 September 2008 a European Arrest Warrant for a conviction in relation to an accepted extradition offence was issued. It was certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 16 December 2008. Mr Bergman was arrested in the UK on 10 August 2010.
On 10 September there was an extradition hearing and subsequently, on 21 September, District Judge Evans ordered that Mr Bergman should be returned to the Czech Republic in compliance with the European Arrest Warrant. Mr Bergman has told the court today, and I accept it from him, that he had lawyers up to but not beyond 21 September. He filled in, or assisted with the filling in, and he signed, a draft notice of appeal seeking an appeal to this court overturning the extradition order. A copy of the draft was faxed to the judicial authority in this country on 24 September, but it was a draft; it was unsealed, had no action number and, it is common ground, would be ineffective as a notice of appeal. As I have already explained to Mr Bergman, the regime for appeal in these respects is extremely limited and tight.
Section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 stipulates in subsection (4):
"Notice of an appeal under this section must be given in accordance with rules of court before the end of the permitted period, which is 7 days starting at the day on which of the order is made".
On the facts of this case, the 7 day period ran out on 27 September.
Examination of the court file makes it clear that the appellant's notice, fully completed, was received by the court office at 6 minutes to 5 in the afternoon on 27 September. By 1 minute past 5 on the same day the court staff had completed the formalities, stamped the notice of appeal, and returned it by fax to the applicant. Under the very strict regime which applies, it was for him to serve that on the Crown Prosecution Service before midnight that night.
Mr Bergman has told the court today that he only ever saw the draft notice of appeal, or the completed version, many days into October. It would follow from that that the prison authorities did not get the sealed copy to him on the relevant day. I accept all of that from Mr Bergman; I have no basis for rejecting any of it.
The strictness of the regime has been considered in a number of cases. The House of Lords considered the very rigid regime adopted in the case of Mucelli v Government of Albania [2009] 1 WLR 276. There is no need for me to read extracts from that decision. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lukaszewski and Others v The District Court in Torun, Poland and Others (No 3)
...that the document had been filed at the Administrative Court was required. Walerianczyk was followed in Bergman, R (on the application of) v District Court in Kladno Czech Republic [2011] EWHC 267 20 Clearly not all these cases speak with the same voice. It seems to me the balance between ......
-
Lukaszewski and Others v The District Court in Torun, Poland and Others (No 2)
...under section 28—a decision which meant that it was the Polish authority that was out of time to appeal. In R (Bergman) v District Court in Kladno, Czech Republich [2011] EWHC 267 (Admin), a notice of appeal was prepared by an unrepresented defendant who had been remanded in custody, and w......
-
Gjergj Cupi v The Government of Albania
...relevant entitlement or it will not." 14 This approach was adopted by Irwin J, as he then was, in Bohm v Romanian Judicial Authority [2011] EWHC 267 (Admin), who stated, "5. That retrial is defined so as to include expressly the rights conferred under Article 6(3)(c) and (d) of the European......