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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll