Chen v Government of Romania, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 15, 2007, [2007] EWHC 520 (Admin),[2008] 1 All ER 851

Extract

---

Chen v Government of Romania, Court of Appeal - Administrative Court, March 15, 2007, [2007] EWHC 520 (Admin),[2008] 1 All ER 851

Neutral Citation Number: [2007] EWHC 520 (Admin)

Case No: C0/8844/2006

C0/8941/2006

C0/9236/2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

DIVISIONAL COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

15 March 2007

Before:

LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER

and

MR JUSTICE DAVID CLARKE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between:

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of

WordWave International Ltd

A Merrill Communications Company

190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG

Tel No: 020 7421 4040 Fax No: 020 7831 8838

Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Edward Fitzgerald Q.C. and Rachel Spearing (instructed by Messrs Blavo & Co) for Chen.

Campaspe Lloyd Jacob (instructed by Messrs Tuckers) for Mitoi.

John Hardy and Ben Watson (instructed by The Crown Prosecution Service) for The Government of Romania.

David Perry Q.C. and Kate Wilkinson (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for The Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Hearing date: 19 January 2007

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JudgmentLord Justice Scott Baker:

This is the judgment of the court to which both members have contributed.

Introduction.

1. These two cases, which concern extradition requests by the government of Romania, have been listed to be heard together because each concerns the right of appeal or review following remittal by the High Court of a question under s 104(1)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003 (``the 2003 Act''). In each case there is a statutory appeal under the 2003 Act. In Chen's case there is additionally an application for permission to apply for judicial review of the judge's decision. In Mitoi's case there is additionally a claim for permission to apply for judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision and, as will become apparent later in this judgment, the court has treated the material before it as creating an application for permission to apply for judicial review of the district judge's decision.

2. In both cases the district judges at the extradition hearings made orders under s 87(3) of the Act sending the cases to the Secretary of State for his decision. In both cases the appellants had been convicted in their absence. Accordingly the judge in each case had to decide whether any of the bars to extradition prescribed by s 79 existed and, if not, then to consider s 85 which deals specifically with convicted persons before moving to s 87 (infringement o...

See the full content of this document

---