[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Ahmad v USA & Anor [2006] EWHC 1378 (Admin) (11 May 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/1378.html Cite as: [2006] EWHC 1378 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		11th May 2006

1. LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: These two statutory appeals under the Extradition Act are presently before the court for directions. In the case of Ahmad, there is also an application for leave to apply for judicial review which was refused on the 17th March of this year and is before the court as a renewed application.
2. The situation is slightly complicated by reason of the fact that points of law have been certified in the cases of Norris and Bermingham. This court has refused leave to appeal in each of those cases and a decision is currently awaited from the House of Lords Appellate Committee in respect of the grant of leave. That decision is not expected for another four weeks or thereabouts. It is said that if permission should be granted in either of those cases, that the House of Lords would not be in a position to hear the appeals before 2007.
3. In the first place, there seems to me to be no reason to proceed further to deal with the renewed application for leave to apply for judicial review in Ahmad because the issue there is precisely the same as the issue in Norris. That will be resolved one way or the other by what the House of Lords decide in respect of Norris. Either they will not grant permission or they will grant permission, and the matter will be finally resolved by the decision in that case.
4. It seems to me that there would be no merit whatsoever in adjourning these two statutory appeals generally, as sought by Mr Powles on behalf of the appellant, until after the decisions of the House of Lords, whenever they may be, in Bermingham and Norris. To take such a course would, it seems to me, in effect bring to a halt every application for extradition to the United States in the meantime. There are separate issues, in any event, in these cases.
5. Mr Powles' fall-back position, if the appeals are not adjourned generally, is that they should both be adjourned until October of this year so that further enquiries can be made on behalf of the appellants. The position of counsel for the respondents is that that would be too long a delay. There is a premium in extradition cases in ensuring their early resolution and, apart from anything else, Parliament has imposed timetables that are intended to be kept. For my part, it seems to me that every effort should be made for these two appeals to be heard before the end of the summer term on 31st July.
6. It is agreed that there are a number of common issues in the two appeals and that it would be advantageous for the two of them to be heard together before the same constitution of the Divisional Court. Counsel are common to both cases. If the two appeals are heard together, the estimate is three to three and a half days. If the cases are heard separately, the estimate for each case is likely to be in the region of two days. If they are heard by different constitutions of the Divisional Court there is likely to be an element of overlap. In my judgment, the appropriate order to make is that a date should be fixed for the hearing of these two appeals in July of this year, but before the end of July, with an estimated length of three to three and a half days. Any further evidence to be relied upon by the appellants should be filed not later than two weeks before the date fixed for the hearing. The date is to be fixed for the hearing no later than midday tomorrow, in consultation between counsel's clerks and the Listing Office, with liberty to apply to this court either today or tomorrow should it become necessary to do so.
7. I appreciate that an order of this kind is going to place some considerable pressure on the appellants' solicitors in the further enquiries that they say it is necessary for them to make. If it becomes quite impossible for the case to be ready to be heard by the fixed date, then I would grant liberty to apply to the Lord Justice assigned to preside over the hearing, but I would expect him only to be receptive to an application for an adjournment if he was persuaded that the material put before him showed that every effort had been made on the part of the appellants to obtain the necessary evidence in the meantime.
8. I would also say that although the cases are to be heard together in July, whether there is an application for adjournment would be a matter that would have to be considered separately in each case. It would not, in my judgment, necessarily follow that because one appeal was adjourned that the other one would likewise be adjourned. In the event that it is only possible for the Divisional Court to dispose of one of the cases in July, it would obviously be desirable for the same constitution to preside over the hearing of the other appeal. That, however, is a matter that may or may not be practicable and a matter that would have to be considered administratively.
9. The point has also been raised that it may be necessary to ask the court to provide video link facilities. In that regard, it would be helpful if the court could provide provisionally for video link facilities to be available. By that, I mean two-way video link facilities between the appellant, who is currently in Woodhill Prison, and the court so that each can hear and see the other. The parties should be directed, as soon as the position has been clarified, to confirm whether, in the event, those video facilities will be required. If they are not required, it would obviously be desirable for the court that had been ear-marked to be made available for other purposes.
10. Does that cover everything?
11. MISS DOBBIN: My Lord, there is just a short. The reference to video link was only made in respect to Mr Ahmad.
12. LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: You are quite right. The order will be drawn up accordingly.
13. MR HARDY: My Lord.
14. LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I should have asked my Lord if he agreed.
15. MR JUSTICE LEVESON: I agree.
16. MR HARDY: In Ahmad's case, the application to extend the relevant period --
17. LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: In both cases I think we need to extend the time for the appeal until 31st July.
18. MR HARDY: I am grateful.
19. LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Would you, Mr Hardy, be kind enough to look after the carriage of the order.
20. MR HARDY: My Lord, it may be that Miss Dobbin can deal with it.
21. LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Miss Dobbin, if you deal with it in manuscript the court can deal with it today, whereas if it has to be typed it will take longer. It will be helpful if you can deal with it now and hand it in.