[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 >> Tiser v Governor of HMP Brixton & Anor [2003] EWHC 2699 (Admin) (28 October 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2003/2699.html Cite as: [2003] EWHC 2699 (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
		28th October 2003

1. LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY: This matter comes before us as an application for habeas corpus, the applicant having been the subject of extradition proceedings at Bow Street Magistrates' Court on 29th January 2003 when he was committed to await the decision of the Secretary of State on a request for extradition from the Government of the Czech Republic in relation to matters concerned with theft from a shop and a car, and the using of a stolen credit card and a savings book. He was granted conditional bail, but unfortunately he failed to maintain contact with the solicitors who were representing him and, as long ago as 25th July, they indicated to the Administrative Court Office that they were without instructions and sought the assistance of the court, so far as it was possible to give it, to contact the applicant directly. The applicant it seems does not speak English, but that for present purposes is of little importance.
2. In the grounds which bring the matter before this court five matters are raised. The first is that the dual criminality requirement has not been satisfied, as the conduct is not punishable in the Czech Republic by up to 12 months' imprisonment. Secondly, that the request is being made on racist grounds because he is a Roma and he will be prejudiced on his return because of that. Thirdly, that the request for extradition was not duly authenticated, it being stamped by the Ministry of Justice rather than the Minister. Fourthly, that the offence itself was of a trivial nature. Fifthly, that the application was not made in good faith.
3. Each and every one of those matters of complaint was fully deployed before the District Judge assigned to deal with this matter. Each and every one of them was fully dealt with in the judgment of the District Judge. Nothing has transpired since then which gives this court cause to think that the decision of the District Judge was other than entirely correct. Accordingly, I, for my part, would dismiss this application.
4. MR JUSTICE ROYCE: I agree.
______________________________