header-logo header-logo

European arrest warrants: Habeas corpus writ denied

27 January 2021
Issue: 7918 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , EU , Brexit , Extradition
printer mail-detail
High Court dismisses ‘misconceived’ arguments against European arrest warrants

An attempt by five men arrested pursuant to the European arrest warrant to apply for a writ of habeas corpus because the Brexit transition period has ended, has been refused.

The five were arrested before 31 December 2020―two of them were detained and three released on bail. They argued there was no longer any legal basis in international law for their surrender, and therefore no basis in domestic law for continued detention or maintenance of bail conditions.

Giving the lead judgment in Polakowski and others v Westminster Magistrates' Court and others [2021] EWHC 53 (Admin), however, Dame Victoria Sharp, president of the Queen’s Bench Division, said the argument was misconceived for five reasons and refused permission to apply for judicial review in each case.

First, Dame Sharp said the correct starting point for legal analysis was the Act of Parliament governing extradition, not the framework decision or other piece of EU law. Legal questions involving rights or obligations said to be derived from EU law should be approached through the lens of domestic law.

Second, that the five were properly arrested under the Extradition Act 2003 (EA 2003) was not in dispute. Third, the ‘central plank’ of the applicants’ argument was that the framework decision could not apply in the UK after transition ended, but that was wrong, as Art 7(1) of the Withdrawal Agreement provided that all references to member states and competent authorities in provisions of EU law should be understood as including the UK, and Art 7(1) was not time-limited.

Fourth, domestic legislation expressly provided that the amendments to EA 2003 made as a result of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) did not apply where the arrest took place before transition ended.

Finally, Dame Sharp said that ‘although the UK will no longer have access to the Schengen Information System II, there is nothing to support the submission that this will in practice render impossible arrangements for transit and surrender of requested persons. It may also be noted that, while the UK will no longer be a member of Eurojust or Europol, the TCA provides for cooperation with both bodies.’

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Boies Schiller Flexner—Tim Smyth

Firm promotes London international arbitration specialist to partnership

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Katten Muchin Rosenman—James Davison & Victoria Procter

Firm bolsters restructuring practice with senior London hires

HFW—Guy Marrison

HFW—Guy Marrison

Global aviation disputes practice boosted by London partner hire

NEWS
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
A construction defect claim in the Court of Appeal offers a sharp lesson in pleading discipline. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains how a catastrophically drafted schedule of loss derailed otherwise viable claims. Across the areas explored in this week's column, the message is consistent: clarity, economy and proper pleading matter more than ever
back-to-top-scroll