0
comments
On appeal from the QBD Divisional Court (England and Wales)
Issues
- What are the minimum requirements to constitute good notice of appeal for the purposes of section 108(4) of the Extradition Act 2003?
- If an individual is notified by fax sent after 4:30p.m. that the Secretary of State has decided to order his extradition, when does time begin to run for the purposes of the 14-day time limit in section 108(4) of the Extradition Act 2003?
- The Appellant was arrested under a provisional arrest warrant issued under section 73 of the Extradition Act 2003.
- He was remanded in custody while the Secretary of State considered whether to order his extradition to the USA.
- On 22 December 2010 officials acting on behalf of the Secretary of State sent a fax to the Appellant informing him that the Secretary of State had decided to order his extradition. It is not clear whether the fax was sent before or after 4:30pm on that day.
- Seven days later, on 29 December 2010, the Appellant’s solicitors filed a full notice of appeal in form N161 with the Administrative Court.
- On the same day, the Appellant also sent a handwritten letter to the Secretary of State asking her to ‘accept this letter as notice and service of my intent to appeal that order’ and stating that he had instructed solicitors and counsel for that purpose.
- On 4 January 2011 the 14-day time limit for filing and serving a notice of appeal prima facie expired.
- On 5 January 2011 the Appellant’s solicitors faxed a sealed copy of the Appellant’s form N161 to the Crown Prosecution Service and posted a sealed copy of the form to the Secretary of State.
- On trial of a preliminary issue, the Divisional Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to order the Appellant’s extradition since the Appellant had failed to comply with the requirements of section 108(4) of the Extradition Act 2003.
- The court held that the Appellant’s handwritten letter was not a notice of appeal because it was no more than an indication that the Appellant intended to appeal.
- The court also held that the 14-day time limit began to run on the day that the Appellant was informed that the Secretary of State had ordered his extradition, regardless of what time during the day the fax notifying him of the decision was actually sent.
- Accordingly, the time-limit for filing and serving a valid notice of appeal had expired on 4 January 2011 – before the Appellant served his form N161 on the Secretary of State and the CPS.
***********************************
General - CaseID: UKSC 2011/0180
- Case name: R (on the application of Halligen) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent)
- Case stage: Hearing Scheduled
- Date of issue: 10 Aug 2011
- Expedition requested: Not Applied For
- Order being appealed - Date: 21 Jun 2011
- Order being appealed - Court: Divisional Court QBD (EW)
- Devolution: No
- Human Rights raised: Yes
- Human Rights raised - details: Article 6 ECHR Declaration of Incompatibility sought
- Intervener: No
***********************************
Permission to appeal
- Date supporting documents received: 16 Aug 2011
- Date PTA application referred to justices: 04 Oct 2011
- Permission granted/refused: Granted
- Notice of intention to proceed filed: Yes
***********************************
Parties
- Appellant name: Kevin Richard Halligen
- Respondent name: Secretary of State for the Home Department
- Date form 3 filed: 18 Nov 2011
- Respondent case date filed: 31 Jan 2012
***********************************
Appeal
- Justices allocated: Yes
- Justices allocated - names:
- Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers
- Lady Hale of Richmond
- Lord Mance of Frognal
- Lord Kerr of Wilson
- PTA granted by court below: No
- Statement of facts & issues and Appendix due date: 07 Feb 2012
- Time estimate number of days: 1.5 days
- Hearing date: 21 Feb 2012
***********************************
Labels:
2012,
FBI,
Fraud,
Kevin Halligen,
Money Laundering
