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

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Myers & Co—Jen Goodwin

Head of corporate promoted to director

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Boies Schiller Flexner—Lindsay Reimschussel

Firm strengthens international arbitration team with key London hire

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

Corker Binning—Priya Dave

FCA contentious financial regulation lawyer joins the team as of counsel

NEWS
Social media giants should face tortious liability for the psychological harms their platforms inflict, argues Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers in this week’s NLJ
The Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024—once heralded as a breakthrough—has instead plunged leaseholders into confusion, warns Shabnam Ali-Khan of Russell-Cooke in this week’s NLJ
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has now confirmed that offering a disabled employee a trial period in an alternative role can itself be a 'reasonable adjustment' under the Equality Act 2010: in this week's NLJ, Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve analyses the evolving case law
Caroline Shea KC and Richard Miller of Falcon Chambers examine the growing judicial focus on 'cynical breach' in restrictive covenant cases, in this week's issue of NLJ
Ian Gascoigne of LexisNexis dissects the uneasy balance between open justice and confidentiality in England’s civil courts, in this week's NLJ. From public hearings to super-injunctions, he identifies five tiers of privacy—from fully open proceedings to entirely secret ones—showing how a patchwork of exceptions has evolved without clear design
back-to-top-scroll