Balazs v Crown prosecution Service

Balazs v Crown prosecution Service

A valid application for discharge under s.36(8) made after the expiry of the required period cannot be circumvented by a subsequent extension agreement under s.36(3)(b); the Magistrates' Court must hear and decide the discharge application, and extensions agreed after such application are valid only for future periods.

Parties
Applicant: Laszlo Balazs; Respondent: The Crown Prosecution Service; Respondent: The National Crime Agency; 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 Procedure, European Arrest Warrant, Statutory Interpretation, Detention and Discharge, Extension of Removal Period
Criminal Law Extradition Law Administrative Law Extradition Procedure European Arrest Warrant Statutory Interpretation Detention and Discharge Extension of Removal Period

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laszlo Balazs

Applicant

The Crown Prosecution Service

Respondent

The National Crime Agency

Respondent

Governor of Her Majesty’s Prison, Wandsworth

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the power to extend the required period for extradition can be exercised after the primary period has expired
  2. 2 Whether an application for discharge under s.36(8) can be circumvented by a subsequent application for extension under s.36(3)(b)
  3. 3 Relationship between s.36(3)(b) extension and s.36(8) discharge applications

Ratio Decidendi

A valid application for discharge under s.36(8) made after the expiry of the required period cannot be circumvented by a subsequent extension agreement under s.36(3)(b); the Magistrates' Court must hear and decide the discharge application, and extensions agreed after such application are valid only 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 on the s.36(8) application does not impact the s.36(3) agreements already made in this case