R Bugyo v Regional Court in Kosice Slovakia
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Blake |
| Judgment Date | 21 November 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 4230 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/4428/2014 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 21 November 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 4230 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Blake
CO/4428/2014
The Appellant appeared in person
Miss Catherine Brown appeared on behalf of the Respondent
On 18 September 2014 a judge of the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court ordered this appellant's extradition to Slovakia on a conviction warrant for offences relating to deduction and payment of tax by a company of which he was a managing director. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment in Slovakia in February 2005. The requesting State seeks his return to carry out that sentence. In the court below the appellant was represented. There clearly were discussions between the appellant and his former solicitors as to an appeal.
On 23 September a notice of appeal was issued by the appellant in person which is completed in manuscript. It identifies the decision to be appealed against as that of District Judge Devas and states that a skeleton argument and grounds of appeal will follow. In due course directions were issued by this court. Pursuant to those directions, the appellant's lawyers applied for legal aid to represent him at this appeal. It then came to light that the notice of appeal had not been served upon the requesting state through the relevant officers at the Crown Prosecution Service. That is common ground. There is an issue between the appellant and his previous solicitors as to whether they ever told him that he needed to serve the respondent state as well as the court in order to lodge a valid notice of appeal. He says he was never so advised. They dispute it, but in the circumstances are unable to advance any case of on his behalf as to why there may be exceptional reasons to extend time to enable the failure to serve the requesting state to be rectified. They have accordingly applied to come off the record as they would be professionally embarrassed. I have granted that application.
What now follows is that I have heard Mr Bugyo in person, who fortunately has reasonable command of the English language and is able to articulate to me that he does not wish to return to Slovakia and wishes to proceed with an appeal based upon the interference with his life here that this extradition request would have. I have pointed out that the issue that confronts this court is whether it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. For that purpose I will assume that the facts are as Mr Bugyo contends they are — albeit that they are disputed by his former advisers — and that he was never advised by them that he had to serve his notice upon the requesting state as well as the court.
Section 26 (4) of the Extradition Act 2003 states:
"(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...
To continue reading
Request your trial