|[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 >> Karpichkov & Anor, R (on the application of) v Lativia & Ors  EWHC Admin 329 (26 April 2001)
Cite as:  EWHC Admin 329
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE GARLAND
|THE QUEEN ON THE APPLICATION OF|
|KARPICHKOV and MARAIS|
|LATIVIA and THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA|
|THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT|
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited,
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Telephone No: 202 7421 4040 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR MALCOLM BISHOP QC and MR ROBIN PEARSE WHEATLEY appeared on behalf of Marais
MR JAMES LEWIS appeared on behalf of Latvia
MISS HELEN MALCOLM appeared of behalf of the Republic of South Africa
MR PHILIP SALES appeared on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department
Crown Copyright ©
26th April 2001
MR BISHOP: I don't think there is much I can say.
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY: Viewed as at today, there might be a certain advantage in keeping them together, but it seems to me that the situation may well change radically. I do not know.
MR BISHOP: I have no objection to that happening, my Lord. It may be that we can gain valuable assistance from that taking place.
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY: If no one makes the application I will say no more about it, but I merely gave you the opportunity to express any view you might have.
MR BISHOP: It might, of course, affect the list, the timing of the hearing, and therefore the listing arrangements. I think we would expect Marais's case to take a full day. I can't speak for Karpichkov.
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY: I think you may be about to receive some assistance, I am not sure. (Pause).
MR SCANNELL: My Lord, I think I have nothing to say on the matter.
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY: You probably were not able to hear what Mr Bishop just said now. He said that he thought that his case might take a full day. Can you help us as to length in your case?
MR SCANNELL: I think it could take up to a day as well. My Lord, the reason I said I was not able to say anything is because I don't know the precise basis of the habeas application. It may be that we are dealing with completely different things.
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY: Viewed as at today, I would be inclined to say that the estimate for the two together might be a day and a half, but I think one does have to have regard to the fact that times may change considerably before the matter is listed.
MR SALES: Could I say something, my Lord? In essence the Secretary of State's interest in the Marais case falls with your Lordship's ruling today.
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, that was the one on which we wished to have the assistance of the Secretary of State.
MR SALES: Because that was the point of principle on which the Secretary of State desire to be heard.
The point of principle, if it remains such, in relation to the Karpichkov matter will be the first thing to be sorted out in relation to the Karpichkov proceedings in the judicial review, and the Secretary of State will retain his interest on that point of principle.
I raise this point, my Lord, because it is perhaps important to identify what is going to happen next in each set of proceedings because it is going to be substantially different in the Marais matter. The extradition process will now continue, but in the Karpichkov matter the first thing that will happen is a judicial review hearing in relation to the question of adjournment or not by the magistrate rather than the substantive extradition matter.
Now my learned friend, Mr Scannell, says that he thinks that will take a day, sorting out the question of adjournment. We do say it would not be anything like a day. We have sorted out the problem in relation to Marais this morning in the course of about an hour, and there is no reason why a judicial review court, particularly in the light of your Lordship's ruling this morning, should not be able to dispose of that issue within the space of hour or two hours at most.
As to what then happened to the --
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY: The matter would then have to go back to the magistrate.
MR SCANNELL: Yes. So, my Lord, in view of the different issues that will arise and the very different stage that has been reached in the two sets of proceedings we do respectfully question whether there is now much sense in listing them together.
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY: I am also conscious of the fact that you have indicated that the decision in Karpichov on the asylum application will be likely to be made by about eight weeks, which means by 21st June. If one adds on to that the 16 weeks you added on to it that means by 11th October when one could have a decision in relation to it in any event.
MR SCANNELL: The timetable is different as well. My Lord, I thought it right to point that out.
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY: No, it's very helpful. I don't think one can say any more at this stage. Miss Malcolm, you were about to say something.
MISS MALCOLM: I was going to add my penny worth and say as far as Marais is concerned the full habeas corpus will involve decisions on three different areas, the political area, plus two factual issues about the state of South African jails and the legal position ex parte Hilthen and Bassi (?), which don't, as far as I can see, have any bearing on Karpichkov's case. I suspect that trying to get us all together for a two day hearing at the court's convenience is likely to be more difficult than simply coinciding diaries between ourselves. I would urge a diversion of courses from hereon.
MR SCANNELL: Could I say that I agree with that, having now heard from my friends what in fact the positions are.
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY: You do not think there is any point in keeping them together. Now, Mr Lewis, you haven't stood up. It's time you did.
MR LEWIS: Just for the record my time estimate, given that I think it be sensible for them to be dealt with separately, for my part I can't imagine making submissions for more than half an hour, so I would have thought two hours would be adequate for the adjournment on the judicial review so far as Karpichkov is concerned.
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY: If we have not made it clear – and I trust I did – what the effect of the judgment today is, is that as a matter of generality there will be no adjournment of proceedings in this court arising out of extradition simply because of the existence of a concurrent application for asylum. Thank you all very much.