header-logo header-logo

27 January 2021
Issue: 7918 / Categories: Legal News , Criminal , EU , Brexit , Extradition
printer mail-detail

European arrest warrants: Habeas corpus writ denied

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

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

Senior appointments in insurance services and commercial services announced

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Aviation disputes practice strengthened by London partner hire

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Residential property lawyer promoted to partnership

NEWS
he abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC
Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
back-to-top-scroll