THE QUEEN on THE APPLICATION OH PHILIP HARKINS v THE Secretary of State for the Home Department
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MR JUSTICE LLOYD JONES,THE PRESIDENT |
| Judgment Date | 14 February 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWHC 639 (Admin) |
| Date | 14 February 2007 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/4696/2006 |
[2007] EWHC 639 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
The President of the Queen's Bench Division
Mr Justice Lloyd Jones
CO/4696/2006
The applicant appeared in person assisted by a McKenzie Friend, Esther Hutchison
MISS C DOBBIN (instructed by the Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the DEFENDANT
MISS A EZEKIEL (instructed by the CPS, London EC4M 2NG) appeared on behalf of the Interested Party, the Government of America
: I shall ask Lloyd Jones J to give the first judgment.
This is an application for judicial review by Philip Harkins, the claimant, who seeks to challenge the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department communicated by letter dated 1 June 2006 to extradite him to the United States of America on a charge of murder. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted by Goldring J on 24 October 2006.
Although Mr Harkins had the assistance of solicitors and counsel at earlier stages of his application, he has appeared in person to present his arguments at the hearing before us. He has produced two skeleton arguments and has presented his arguments ably and efficiently in circumstances which have not been easy for him. The Secretary of State, and the Government of the United States of America, have been separately represented by counsel.
The factual background
The claimant is 28 years of age. He was born in Scotland and raised by his grandparents. At the age of 14 he was taken at the request of his mother and stepfather to the United States of America, where they then resided. On 11 August 1999 the claimant was arrested in Florida on suspicion of the murder and attempted robbery of Mr Joshua Hayes on 10 August 1999. He was interviewed and he informed the police that he had spent the night at home with his fiance, Keisha Thompson, having been dropped there by an acquaintance by the name of Terry Glover.
As a result of the information given by the claimant, Mr Glover was arrested and interviewed. The claimant understands that at first Mr Glover denied all knowledge of the claimant and the incident. Later Mr Glover alleged that Mr Randle and the claimant had been responsible for the murder of Mr Hayes. He then gave a third version of events in which he alleged that the claimant had, in fact, carried out the crime.
As a result of Glover's account the claimant was further interviewed and the new version of events was put to him. The claimant denied these matters completely. At the time of his arrest the claimant's clothes were seized and were subjected to forensic examination. The results were negative. The claimant's fiance was interviewed. She confirmed his presence in her company at the alleged time.
Other persons were interviewed, including a Mr Randle and a Mr Madden. Both of these persons admitted to being at the scene of the crime. They stated the claimant had not been present at the scene and that he did not fit the description of the killer. At that stage the case was dropped against the claimant. On 22 September 1999, the claimant was notified that the District Attorney was not going to prosecute him for any involvement in the killing of Joshua Hayes. On 18 November 1999 a formal notice was entered on the record as to the discontinuance of the prosecution.
In January 2000 a different prosecutor, Angela Corey, Assistant State Attorney, revisited the case. She arranged an interview with Glover on 31 January 2000. As a result of that meeting a written agreement was produced on 31 January 2000. It recorded that Glover had agreed to allow the police to conduct an investigation with his full co-operation. Due to the unusual nature of the case, the procedural history and the fact that Glover wanted to co-operate at that time, but could not consult with an Attorney, the prosecutors who signed the agreement agreed that any conversation that occurred as a result of Glover's co-operation would only be used against Philip Harkins in the prosecution of Harkins' case or cases. None of the conversation would be used against Glover since he was willing to help without the benefit of counsel. It added that this procedure was extremely rare and was only being done due to the unusual circumstances of the case.
The following day, 1 February 2000, a further agreement in writing was entered into between the State of Florida and Glover. On the basis of this agreement the State agreed not to charge Glover with murder but agreed to charge him, and he agreed to plead guilty to, the offences of robbery with a weapon and being an accessory after the fact to first degree murder. The agreement recorded that the defendant could receive any sentence up to and including 15 years in a Florida State prison. Sentencing would be deferred. It recorded that the defendant's sentence would be determined by a judge and that the State of Florida would make a recommendation to the court at sentencing. It stated that the State's sentencing recommendation would be based upon the defendant's co-operation by providing truthful testimony regarding the armed robbery of Joshua Hayes that resulted in the death of Joshua Hayes.
On 2 February 2000 the claimant was charged with capital murder and attempted robbery. The claimant, at that stage, had not been provided with any disclosure and he was further advised that the death penalty would be sought in his case. The defence raised objections against the late filing and a pre-trial conference was scheduled. The claimant was subsequently released on unconditional bail on his own recognisance. Several hearings took place during 2000 and 2001. Several dates were set for trial and then vacated. Disclosure of evidence was provided during this period. That included statements from Mr Randle and Mr Madden. Mr Madden in his statement claimed he had been at the scene and stated that the murderer had not been the claimant.
On behalf of the claimant it is said that Mr Randle made a sworn statement alleging that he had been offered an inducement by the Assistant State Attorney, Angela Corey, and a Police Officer, Detective Davis. Mr Randle claimed that he had been asked to make a statement falsely placing the claimant at the scene of the murder. He stated that in return for making such a statement he had been promised that other charges, unrelated to the index offence, would be dropped against him and that Mr Randle would be granted immunity in respect of the Hayes' murder charges.
Throughout 2000 and 2001 the claimant attended all the court hearings in his case. On or about 11 December 2001 the claimant left the United States of America. He travelled to the United Kingdom and resided with his grandparents. On 26 January 2003, the claimant was concerned in an incident in Scotland, which resulted in his being charged with an offence of causing death by dangerous driving. The claimant's car was involved in a head-on collision with another vehicle whilst the claimant had been driving on the wrong side of the road. The passenger in the other car was killed. The claimant himself suffered severe injuries.
On 3 February 2003 the claimant was arrested in the Clyde Royal Hospital as a result of the provisional arrest warrant issued by the Bow Street Magistrates' Court pursuant to the Extradition Act 1999. On 30 July 2003, the United States Government made an extradition application against the claimant alleging that he had murdered Joshua Hayes and attempted to rob him on 10 August 1999. The claimant appeared at the Bow Street Magistrates' Court for his extradition hearing in July 2003. He was represented by counsel. There was before the court confirmation that the State of Florida had withdrawn its notice of intention to seek the death penalty and was pursuing a life sentence. It was argued by the claimant that the evidence produced by the Government for the United States was unreliable because of the agreement with Mr Glover and that it lacked credibility. The only evidence that was submitted by the Government of the United States in the proceedings was the evidence of Mr Glover.
Counsel, on behalf of the claimant, submitted at that hearing that there was insufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly directed, could return a verdict of guilty. She submitted that the statement of Glover made on 1 February 2000, a transcript of his evidence and the deposition of 17 January 2002 were at variance with his affidavit sworn on 26 February 2003. The differences, it was submitted, between these various accounts were fundamental so as to render Glover's evidence unreliable. Counsel submitted that the unusual circumstances surrounding the agreement between the prosecutor and Glover were such as to taint the totality of the testimony and to render it unreliable.
The claimant maintains that his counsel did not at that hearing make any reference to the absence of the claimant's alibi witness and that she did not make reference to the statements of Mr Randle and Mr Madden or the absence of any forensic evidence. It is further said that she did not put forward the fact that Mr Randle had made a subsequent statement implicating Assistant District Attorney Corey and Officer Davis in an attempt to pervert the course of justice. The claimant also submits that the District Judge at that hearing was not told that the evidence of Glover was obtained in breach of the Florida Rules of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Phillip Harkins v The Secretary of State for the Home Department Government of the United States of America (Interest Party)
...in Harkins v UK. First, it is striking that the GC in Vinter does not contradict or even refer to anything that the court had said in Harkins. Secondly, the phraseology in the two cases is very similar even if not exactly the same. Thus, at [137] of Harkins the court rejected the argument t......
-
R v Oakes R v Restivo R v Roberts R v Simmons R v Stapleton
... ... the court of the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to determine how ... 20 In Harkins and Edwards v United Kingdom (App. Nos. 9146/07 ... a result Christine Chambers made an application to the court for a non-molestation order. On 21st ... ...
-
Jose Luis Inzunza and Others v (1, 2) Government of the United States of America and Others
...to the point. Similar criticisms were considered and rejected by this Court on the previous application for Judicial Review: see, [2007] EWHC 639 (Admin). In any event, these are matters to be raised and dealt with in the trial process in Florida. They do not assist on the Art. 3 issue now......