Balazs v The Crown Prosecution Service & Ors [2018] EWHC 2540 (Admin) (21 September 2018)

Balazs v The Crown Prosecution Service & Ors [2018] EWHC 2540 (Admin) (21 September 2018)

Once the required period for extradition expires without compliance, the applicant's right to apply for discharge under s.36(8) arises and must be determined; this right cannot be circumvented by a subsequent agreement to extend the period under s.36(3)(b), although such agreements remain valid for future periods.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2540 (Admin)
Parties
Applicant: Laszlo Balazs; First Respondent: The Crown Prosecution Service; Second Respondent: The National Crime Agency; Third Respondent: Governor of Her Majesty's Prison, Wandsworth
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus / Judgment on Application
Outcome
Writ of habeas corpus granted
Legal Topics
Extradition Act 2003 S.36, European Arrest Warrant, Framework Decision Article 23, Habeas Corpus, Judicial Review of Extradition Process
Extradition Criminal Law Administrative Law Extradition Act 2003 S.36 European Arrest Warrant Framework Decision Article 23 Habeas Corpus Judicial Review of Extradition Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laszlo Balazs

Applicant

The Crown Prosecution Service

First Respondent

The National Crime Agency

Second Respondent

Governor of Her Majesty's Prison, Wandsworth

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the required period for extradition under s.36(3)(a) Extradition Act 2003 can be extended after expiry
  2. 2 Whether an application for discharge under s.36(8) can be circumvented by a subsequent extension agreement under s.36(3)(b)
  3. 3 Relationship between s.36(3)(b) extension and s.36(8) discharge application

Ratio Decidendi

Once the required period for extradition expires without compliance, the applicant's right to apply for discharge under s.36(8) arises and must be determined; this right cannot be circumvented by a subsequent agreement to extend the period under s.36(3)(b), although such agreements remain valid for future periods.

Court Disposition

Writ of habeas corpus granted

Orders

  • Westminster Magistrates' Court must list, hear, and decide the s.36(8) application as soon as possible.
  • The decision does not affect the validity of s.36(3) agreements already made.