R Chmielewski v Westminster Magistrates' Court
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Silber,Lord Justice Moses |
| Judgment Date | 21 February 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 631 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/14797/2013 |
| Date | 21 February 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 631 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Moses
Mr Justice Silber
CO/14797/2013
Mr B Keith (instructed by Imran Khan and Partners) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
The Defendant did not attend and was not represented
Mr N Hearn (instructed by CPS) appeared on behalf of Judicial Authority in Poland (Interested Party)
Introduction
. Michal Chmielewski, who is a Polish national, has been extradited from Poland where he is in custody and awaiting trial.
On 7 December 2012 a request for consent was issued by a judge of the Provisional Court in Warsaw, Poland, seeking that the Claimant be tried for a further 18 offences pursuant to the provisions of sections 54 and 55 of the Extradition Act 2003. The request was certified by SOCA on 31 December 2012.
On 25 July 2013 District Judge Nicholas Evans, sitting at Westminster Magistrates' Court, gave consent that the Claimant should be tried for 16 of the offences referred to in the request, but not for the further two offences.
The Claimant is now applying for Judicial Review to quash that decision. On 22 January 2012, King J adjourned the application so that it could be listed in court as a rolled-up hearing. He also granted injunctive relief pending the determination of the Judicial Review application preventing the consent being communicated to the Judicial Authority and ordering that if a consent had been so communicated, that the Judicial Authority be requested not to act upon it.
The Claimant also brought an appeal under section 26 of the 2003 Act against the decision of the District Judge, but it has been dismissed by consent because there is no jurisdiction to hear appeals against such orders for consent. Indeed, it was determined by this court in Chyba v District Court in Strakonice [2008] EWHC 3292 Admin that challenges to responses to consent requests have to be brought by Judicial Review. The reason for that is that the applications for consent with which this application is concerned arise out of a totally different statutory regime from the EAW regime under which appeals can be brought to this court.
The Challenge
The main ground of challenge on this Judicial Review application is that the District Judge acted Wednesbury unreasonably in concluding that the requirements of section 2 of the 2003 Act which relate to EAWs did not apply to consent requests. The significance of that was that a Judicial Authority had It was contended in the Claimant's written skeleton argument, although not pursued before us, that there was an abuse of process by the Judicial Authority in not setting out the matters in the consent request in the earlier EAW which led to the Claimant's extradition. However, it has now been correctly accepted by counsel on behalf of the Claimant that there is no merit in that point because he has no evidence to support it. Therefore, I...
To continue reading
Request your trial