CHAPTER ONE – THE INITIAL HEARING
Arrest under certified request/warrant
Powers of arrest
The 2003 Act provides for a range of powers of arrest in order to give effect to extradition requests.
In Part 1 cases, the position is relatively straightforward since no domestic arrest warrant is required in order to arrest a Requested Person. Instead, it is the Part 1 warrant itself that is executed, provided that it has been certified under section 2 of the 2003 Act by the “designated authority” (currently the National Crime Agency (‘NCA’)). Additionally, there is a power to arrest without a warrant (known as ‘provisional arrest’), which applies where the arresting officer has reasonable grounds for believing that a Part 1 warrant has been or will be issued, and the warrant and accompanying section 2 certificate are provided to the Court in very short order (48 hours, extendable to a maximum of 96 hours).
Part 2 cases are more complex, since not only is a domestic arrest warrant required in order to give effect to an extradition request by a category 2 territory, but there are also two separate schemes for provisional arrest in Part 2 cases.
Arrest in Part 1 and 2 cases
Where a Part 1 warrant has been certified by the NCA under section 2 of the 2003 Act, it may be executed by a constable or customs officer under section 3. Service police officers may only execute a warrant if the Requested Person is subject to service law or is a civilian subject to service discipline (s.3(3)). A warrant may be executed even if the arresting officer does not have a copy of it in their possession at the time of arrest (s.3(5)).
A Part 2 request which has been certified by the Secretary of State under section 70 of the 2003 Act may be executed once the appropriate Judge has issued a domestic arrest warrant, having received the request and certificate pursuant to section 70(9). The appropriate Judge may issue a domestic arrest warrant where they have reasonable grounds for believing that the offence is an extradition offence (s.71(2)(a)), and there is written evidence which would justify the issue of a warrant for the arrest of a person accused of the offence in England and Wales (in an accusation case), or which would justify the issue of a warrant for that person’s arrest if unlawfully at large after conviction (in a conviction case). Section 71(5)-(7) sets out who may execute the domestic arrest warrant, and where. Again, the warrant may be executed even if the arresting officer does not have a copy of it in their possession (s.71(5)(b)).
A copy of the Part 1 warrant or domestic arrest warrant under Part 2, respectively, must be given to Requested Persons as soon as practicable after their arrest. Failure to serve a copy of the Part 1 warrant or Part 2 domestic arrest warrant entitles the Requested Person to apply for their discharge at the initial hearing. The appropriate Judge has a discretion to grant discharge. However, if no prejudice has been suffered by the Requested Person, it will be a reasonable exercise of the Court’s discretion to refuse the application.
The Requested Person must also be produced before the appropriate Judge as soon as practicable following their arrest (unless in a Part 2 case the arresting officer grants the person bail). The hearing at which they are produced is known as the ‘initial hearing’ or ‘initial appearance’, discussed further below. If the Requested Person is not produced as soon as practicable, the appropriate Judge must order their discharge. Whether or not the person has been produced as soon as practicable is a question of fact. In deciding this issue, it is not necessary to show that the arresting officer could have produced the Requested Person themselves, account must be taken of the arrangements in place to transport arrested persons from police stations to Court.
Provisional arrest in Part 1 cases
A constable or customs officer may provisionally arrest a person under section 5 of the 2003 Act without a warrant if they have reasonable grounds for believing that a Part 1 warrant has been or will be issued by a judicial authority of a category 1 territory.
A person provisionally arrested under section 5 must be brought before the appropriate Judge within 48 hours of arrest (s.6(2)). A Part 1 warrant and section 2 certificate must be produced to the judge, also within 48 hours of arrest (s.6(2A) and (4)). If, when the arrested person first appears before the judge, the Part 1 warrant and section 2 certificate have not yet been produced, the representatives of the category 1 territory may apply to extend the time to produce the documents by a further 48 hours (s.6(3A)). The judge may grant such extension if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the requirement to produce the documents could not reasonably be complied with within the initial 48-hour period (ss.6(3B) and (3C)). In such circumstances, the judge must remand the person in custody or on bail (s.6(5B)). If and when the documents are subsequently produced, the arrested person must be brought before the judge (again) (ss.6(2B) and (3)).
If the person is not brought before the judge within 48 hours, or if the warrant and certificate are not produced within 48 hours and no extension is sought, or if the person is not brought before the judge when the warrant and certificate are produced, he may apply to be discharged and the judge must order discharge (s.6(6)). For the purposes of section 6 of the 2003 Act, Saturdays, Sundays, Christmas Day and bank holidays do not count towards any 48-hour time limit (ss.6(8A) and (8B).
As with arrest under sections 3 and 71, a copy of the Part 1 warrant must be given to the person as soon as practicable after their arrest (s.6(5)). Failure to do so means the Requested Person can apply to be discharged, although this power is discretionary (s.6(7)). A person discharged under section 6(6) or (7) must not be arrested again under section 5 on the basis of a belief relating to the same Part 1 warrant (s.6(9) and (10)).
Provisional arrest in Part 2 cases: section 73 of the 2003 Act:
Section 73 enables provisional arrest in Part 2 cases. This power is particularly useful where a person suspected or convicted of an offence in a category 2 country is believed to be in the UK, but there has not been time to complete the sometimes lengthy process of preparing a full extradition request, certification by the Home Office, and issuance of a domestic arrest warrant by an appropriate judge. Thus, section 73 provides that a provisional arrest warrant may be issued under section 73 of the 2003 Act if a judge is satisfied (on information in writing and on oath) that a person is accused or convicted of an offence in a category 2 territory, and is believed to be in the UK or on their way to the country. As with domestic arrest warrants issued under section 71, there must be reasonable grounds to believe that the offence is an extradition offence, and there must be written evidence which would justify the issue of a warrant for the arrest of a person accused of the offence in England and Wales (in an accusation case), or which would justify the issue of a warrant for that person’s arrest if unlawfully at large after conviction (in a conviction case). The powers of arrest on a provisional warrant are the same as if it were a full request.
Section 74 requires that the person must be given a copy of the arrest warrant and be brought as soon as practicable before the appropriate Judge (s.74(2) and (3)), unless granted police bail. Failure to produce the Requested Person before as soon as practicable or to serve a copy of the arrest warrant on them can found an application for discharge under section 74(6) and (5) respectively. As before, the power to discharge for non-service of the warrant is discretionary, whereas discharge for non-production of the Requested Person is mandatory.
Sections 74(10) and (11) make provision for the judge to be provided with the full extradition request, together with the Secretary of State’s certificate, within the required period. That period is 45 days starting with the day on which the person was arrested, or longer for territories designated by an Order made by the Secretary of State. Pending this, the judge must remand the Requested Person in custody or on bail (s.74(7)(c)). Assuming the documents are received within the required period, the Court may proceed to fix a date for the final hearing and issue case management directions (see further below); but if the documents are not received within the required period, section 74(10) provides that the judge must order the person’s discharge.
Provisional arrest in Part 2 cases: section 74A of the 2003 Act
The Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020 (which came into force on 22 October 2020) creates a new scheme of provisional arrest in Part 2 cases, by inserting sections 74A-E into the 2003 Act. In essence, section 74A permits arrest on the basis solely of a certificate issued by the NCA, where the request emanates from one of a number of particularly close and trusted extradition partners (the “specified part 2 territories” listed in Schedule A1 to the 2003 Act, currently Australia, Canada, Iceland, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and the USA), and the offence in respect of which the request is issued is a “serious extradition offence”.
When the 2020 Act was drafted, the intention was that it would apply also (indeed, principally) to requests emanating from EU Member States, in the event that no deal was reached and such States were re-designated as category 2 territories following the end of the transition period. This could have led to a sudden influx of applications to District Judges to issue Part 2 arrest warrants for individuals sought by EU Member States, and the Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Act 2020 was enacted in part to avoid this. Even though the new provisions do not apply to EU Member States, as they are still designated as category 1 territories, this legislative history is worth bearing in mind as it helps to explain some aspects of the new scheme, which are modelled on Part 1 provisions.
Section 74A of the 2003 Act provides constables, customs officers and service police officers the power to make arrests without a warrant, based solely on a certificate issued under section 74B by a “designated authority”. The “designated authority” is defined in section 74B(4) as the NCA.
The NCA may issue a certificate if:
- it receives a “valid request”, made by an authority of a specified category 2 territory, for the person’s arrest (s.74B(1)(a)). A request is “valid” if the requesting authority is one which the NCA believes has the function of making such requests in that territory (s.74C(6)), and if the request contains the statement and information referred to in section 74C(2)-(3) (in an accusation case) or (4)-(5) (in a conviction case). These provisions are similar to sections 2(3)-(4) and (5)-(6) of the 2003 Act, respectively, discussed in detail elsewhere in this book.
- it is satisfied that a warrant has been issued in the category 2 territory for the person’s arrest, or they are alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction by a court in the category 2 territory (s.74B(1)(b)).
- it has reasonable grounds for believing that the offence specified in the request is a “serious extradition offence” (s.74B(1)(c)). In an accusation case, an offence is a “serious extradition offence” if the requirements of section 137 are satisfied, save that where subsections (3) or (4) are relied on, the conduct must be punishable by at least three years’ imprisonment if it was committed in the UK (s.74B(10(d)). In a conviction case, the definition of “serious extradition offence” is satisfied where the requirements of section 138 are made out, except that where subsections (3) is relied on, the conduct must be punishable by at least three years’ imprisonment under the relevant UK law (s.74B(10(d)). Sections 137 and 138 are discussed further below, in the section on dual criminality.
- it is satisfied that the seriousness of the conduct makes it appropriate to issue the certificate (s.74B(1)(d)).
The certificate issued by the NCA must (s.74B(2)):
- state the category 2 territory, the form of the request, and the date on which the request was made;
- certify that the category 2 territory has been specified;
- certify that it is a valid request;
- certify that the offence is “serious” and that it is appropriate to issue the certificate; and
- set out the statement and information referred to in section 74C(2)-(3) (in an accusation case) or (4)-(5) (in a conviction case).
The certificate must be given to the Requested Person as soon as practicable after arrest (s.74A(2)), and the Requested Person must also be brought before an appropriate Judge as soon as practicable pursuant to section 74A(3).
At the initial appearance, the Requested Person may apply for discharge if:
- there were no reasonable grounds on which the designated authority could have issued the certificate under section 74B(1) (for example, if it was clear that the offence could not constitute a “serious extradition offence”). If there were not, he must discharge the Requested Person (s.74D(10)(b)(i)).
- the certificate does not comply with the formal requirements of section 74B(2), in which case the appropriate judge may order discharge (s.74D)(10)(a)(ii)).
- the certificate was not given to the person as soon as practicable after the arrest. As we have seen elsewhere, the judge may discharge in such circumstances; he is not obliged to do so (s.74D(10)(a)(i)).
- the Requested Person was not brought before the appropriate Judge as soon as practicable after arrest. As we have already seen, this is mandatory; the judge must order the person’s discharge if they are satisfied that section 74D(10)(b)(ii) is made out.
If the Requested Person does not fall to be discharged under the above provisions, the appropriate Judge must decide whether, on the basis of the evidence or information before him, a warrant for the person’s provisional arrest would be issued under section 73 of the 2003 Act, discussed above (s.74D(1)). As we have seen, the question here is whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the offence which the person is accused of or has been convicted of is an extradition offence, and whether there is written evidence or information that would justify the issuance of a warrant in this jurisdiction. If the judge decides that a provisional arrest warrant would not be issued, section 74D(2) requires them to order the person’s discharge.
If the judge decides that a provisional arrest warrant would be issued, they must proceed with the initial hearing under section 74E. Inter alia, this provides for the full extradition request and Secretary of State’s certificate to be provided to the appropriate Judge within the period specified in section 74(11) (45 days in most cases), failing which the Requested Person must be discharged (s.74E(4)).
Requirements at the initial hearing
The initial appearance is the hearing at which the Requested Person is brought before the Court for the first time. It serves a number of functions, including to open proceedings, determine a number of preliminary issues and identify the likely issues in the case, determine custody and bail issues, and manage the case going forwards. Exactly what steps are required to be taken at the initial hearing, and what issues are to be considered, varies depending on whether the case is under Part 1 or Part 2, and on what provision the Requested Person has been arrested under.
Production and service of the warrant
As has already been noted, the Requested Person must be produced for their initial hearing, and the relevant documents must be served on them, in short order after their arrest. If this is not done, then one of the first issues the appropriate Judge will have to consider at the initial hearing is whether they fall to be discharged. Practitioners should note that applications for discharge on these grounds must be made at the initial appearance, as it is by no means clear that they can be revisited at a later stage.
In a Part 1 case the judge must decide on a balance of probabilities whether the person arrested is the subject of the warrant. If the judge decides that they are not, they must be discharged. Again, this issue must be addressed at the initial hearing, and cannot be reopened at the extradition hearing.
In Part 2 cases, the judge is not required to consider identity at the initial hearing. It is an issue for the extradition hearing, considered in that chapter later in this book.
In addition to any preliminary issues that are required to be dealt with, there are a number of procedural steps which must be taken at the initial hearing.
For example, the appropriate Judge must inform the Requested Person of the contents of the request for their extradition. Further, they must give them the required information about consent. This is considered further below.
If the Requested Person does not (at that stage) wish to consent, the Court will likely proceed to identification of the issues and case management (discussed further below), with a view to complying with the statutory requirement to fix a date on which the extradition hearing is to begin. The date fixed cannot be later than the end of the permitted period, which is 21 days starting with the date of arrest in a Part 1 case, and two months starting with the date of the first appearance in a Part 2 case.
The only exception to the requirement to fix a date is where the Requested Person has been provisionally arrested under Part 2. In such circumstances, the date for the extradition hearing is not fixed until after the full extradition request and accompanying certificate has been received. The permitted period within which the hearing must begin is two months, starting with the date of receipt of the documents.
Finally, the appropriate Judge is required by the statute to remand the Requested Person in custody or on bail at the conclusion of the initial hearing (as indeed they are at the conclusion of each hearing at which the Requested Person appears before them). Bail is considered in more detail below.
Consent to extradition
The information which the Requested Person is required to be given about consent is that they can consent to their extradition, but that by doing so they will lose the right to appeal against the appropriate Judge’s decision. Consent must be giving in writing and is irrevocable.
In An application by Marc Ballan for Judicial Review  NIQB 140, Kerr LCJ ruled that consent to surrender must be voluntary and made in full awareness of the consequences. He said that voluntariness in this context has the following characteristics:
- The person must deliberately agree/acquiesce to their surrender.
- The person must be free from duress/coercion.
- The person must be of sufficient age/mental capacity to give their mind freely to the course chosen with sufficient comprehension of the nature of the decision to be taken.
- They must not be under any misapprehension as to the factual/legal basis on which the decision to consent is taken.
Therefore if the Requested Person subsequently challenges the voluntariness of consent, an enquiry should be undertaken. Such enquiry need not be elaborate but should include ascertaining:
- Whether the person had been given to understand that they had no option but to consent.
- Whether the person had appreciated that consent meant there would be no investigation as to the possible bars to extradition or whether extradition would be ECHR-compatible.
If consent is found to be involuntary then the question of irrevocability does not arise because the consent is ineffective.
In Celczynski v Polish Judical Authority (No. 1)  EWHC 3450 (Admin) Dove J held that the Requested Person’s consent to his extradition was not lawful on the basis that he was not legally represented at the time that he purported to give his consent. Dove J therefore quashed the order for his extradition.
After the court has considered consent it is necessary to identify the challenges to extradition, which are dealt with in greater detail elsewhere in this book.
As a matter of practice, the advocate representing the Requested Person must complete a case management form at the initial hearing where extradition is contested. This is to put the Court and CPS on notice of the essential facts and the challenges likely to be raised, and to assist the court in exercising its case management powers under Criminal Procedure Rules 50.3 and 50.4. Paper case management forms are available at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. It is important to complete the form as fully and as accurately as possible.
Having appraised the likely issues, the court will make various directions, including setting a date by which any application for legal aid must be made; a date for the service of a statement of issues and evidence upon which the Requested Person wishes to rely; as well as the date by which the Requesting State must serve its evidence and/or assurances.
When fixing the date for the hearing, the advocate ought to provide a realistic estimate of how long it will take to prepare the case and the amount of court time the full hearing is expected to take. The court may list a case management hearing before the substantive hearing, especially in cases where a significant number of complex challenges are raised. In practice, if a Requested Person is remanded in custody, the court is likely to review the progress of the case every 28 days when the person appears to be further remanded in custody.
After dealing with all other issues at the initial hearing the court will consider the question of bail. In accusation cases there is a presumption in favour of bail. If an advocate believes that they need more information in order to make a full and proper bail application, they should not pursue an application at the initial hearing but rather apply to adjourn the case (and have the Requested Person remanded in custody under Paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 of the Bail Act 1976) for the shortest possible period, usually the next working day.
Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 of the Bail Act 1976 provides that a Requested Person need not be granted bail if there are substantial grounds for believing that whether or not they were released on conditions, they would fail to surrender to custody, commit an offence while on bail, interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice, whether in relation to themselves or any other person.
Section 198(13) of the 2003 Act amends the Bail Act 1976 to include a further ground for refusing bail. Paragraph 2B of Schedule 1 provides that the defendant need not be granted bail in extradition proceedings if the conduct would, if carried out in England and Wales, constitute an indictable offence or an offence triable either way, and it appears to the court that the defendant was on bail at the date of the offence.
Examples of conditions commonly imposed in extradition cases are:
- Pre-release security, surety or both;
- Pre-release surrender or retention of travel documents.
- Residence and an electronically monitored curfew,
- Not to apply for international travel documents,
- Reporting at a police station,
- Not to go to any airport, seaport or international rail station.
The Requested Person will need to persuade the court that they have strong ties to this jurisdiction and little incentive to abscond. In the vast majority of extradition cases they are unlikely to achieve bail without a pre-release cash security. The amount of the security will vary according to the Requested Person’s means and the seriousness of the offence for which their extradition is sought.
Securities need to be paid into Westminster Magistrates’ Court. Once bail is granted a reference number can be given to the person paying the security who can then make the payment electronically. If the security is to be paid in cash the person must comply with anti-money laundering regulations. The Requested Person is not usually released from custody until after the court has received the cleared funds into its account. However, some District Judges are amenable to granting post-release securities.
Where a Requested Person has been refused bail by the Magistrates’ Court, they can make a fresh bail application at the next hearing which, unless they consent to be remanded in their absence, will be within eight clear days. This will be a de novo hearing before a different judge, at which all arguments previously made can thus be repeated. If the second bail application is unsuccessful, at subsequent hearings the court does not need to hear arguments which it has previously heard. This is so even though the court must consider the question of bail at each hearing. Thus, if there has been no material change in circumstances since the last application, the defendant is not entitled to make a further application for bail. Thereafter, the Requested Person is remanded in custody to be produced no later than every 28 days (unless they are serving a sentence of imprisonment in this jurisdiction, as set out below).
Bail ‘appeals’ by the Requested Person
Section 22(1A) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 provides that where the Magistrates’ Court withholds bail in extradition proceedings or imposes conditions in granting bail, the High Court may grant bail or vary the conditions imposed. As a matter of practice, an application under this provision is made to the High Court by submitting form N161 to the Administrative Court Office along with the requisite fee. The notice should also be served on the CPS. Legal aid in the High Court is not means tested and a paper CRM14 form should be submitted to the Administrative Court Office to apply for legal aid.
Even though applications to the High Court for bail under section 22(1A) are commonly referred to as appeals, the application is considered de novo rather than as an appeal against a District Judge’s refusal to grant bail.
Prosecution appeals against the grant of bail
If the Requested Person is granted bail by a District Judge, section 1 of the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993 provides that there is a right of appeal against such a decision to the High Court. Oral notice of appeal must be given as soon as the decision is made to grant bail and before the person is released.. Thereafter a written notice of appeal must be served on the Court and the person concerned, within two hours of the conclusion of the hearing before the Magistrates’ Court. The Magistrates’ Court will then remand the person in custody until the appeal is resolved. If the prosecution fails to serve the notices within two hours then the appeal is deemed to have been dismissed. The appeal hearing shall be held within 48 hours of the date of oral notice being given, excluding weekends and public holidays. The appeal against the grant of bail is a rehearing and the Court has the power to remand the person in custody or on bail subject to any conditions it sees fit.
Outstanding domestic proceedings/sentence
Sections 8A and 8B of the 2003 Act (in Part 1 cases) and sections 76A and 76B (in Part 2 cases) deal with the situation where the Requested Person has been charged with an offence in the UK, or is already serving a sentence here, before the extradition hearing begins.
If the person is charged with a domestic criminal offence then the extradition hearing must be adjourned pursuant to section 8A or 76A until either: the charge is disposed of (as defined in section 214); the charge is withdrawn; proceedings in respect of the charge are discontinued; or an order is made for the charge to lie on the file. The Requested Person will not be asked if they consent to their extradition and the court will proceed straight to the issue of bail.
If the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment for a domestic offence then the case may be adjourned until the sentence has been served or until the person is eligible for release. This discretion is engaged only where the Requested Person is in custody; it does not apply where they have been released on licence from a domestic sentence. If the Court exercises its discretion to adjourn, the Requested Person will be produced and the case reviewed every 6 months (unless, of course, the release date is sooner than that).
In some cases, the Requested Person may be subject to a lengthy sentence in the UK. In such circumstances, the CPS may obtain instructions from the Requesting State as to whether it wishes to seek the person’s temporary surrender. If so, the Requesting State would be required to provide an undertaking that the person will be kept in custody pending their trial and then returned to the UK after the proceedings have concluded in the Requesting State. They would then, if the court agrees, be returned to the UK to serve the rest of their sentence.
It is clearly desirable to avoid a long interval between an extradition order being made and the order being carried out; the Requested Person’s circumstances might have changed in the intervening time in such a way as to render extradition inappropriate. For this reason, in Robert Slator v Bow Street Magistrates’ Court and the High Court of Dublin  EWHC 2628 (Admin), it was held that the District Judge’s refusal to adjourn the extradition hearing in circumstances where the domestic sentence would not have been completed for at least 3 years was irrational.
Under section 44 of the 2003 Act, the appropriate Judge is empowered to regulate competing Part 1 warrants, by ordering that the proceedings under one of the Part 1 warrants be deferred until the conclusion of the other (or, where an extradition order has already been made in respect of one of the Part 1 warrants, by ordering that extradition be deferred until the other Part 1 warrant has been disposed of). Where one or both of the competing requests is governed by Part 2, the Secretary of State has the power to decide which set of proceedings should be deferred.
In reaching this decision, the judge must take into account the criteria set out in section 44(7), namely:
- The relative seriousness of the offences concerned;
- The place where each offence was committed (or was alleged to have been committed);
- The date when each request was issued;
- Whether, in relation to each offence, the Requested Person is accused of its commission (not convicted) or is alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction.
Where extradition proceedings or extradition (if this was already ordered) were deferred in order to make way for a competing extradition claim, but the competing claim was resolved in the Requested Person’s favour, there is scope to once again enliven the deferred proceedings or order. Resumption of deferred proceedings is governed by section 180, and the carrying out of a deferred order is dealt with in section 181. In either case, there is a strict window of 21 days (starting with the day on which the other extradition claim is disposed of), within which the judge may order that the deferred proceedings be resumed, or that the deferred order be carried out. If no order is made within this period, the Requested Person must be discharged.
Lastly, a word should be said about applications for legal aid. Legal aid in extradition proceedings is means tested at the Magistrates’ Court, and applications can be submitted online using the LAA Online Portal or in writing with form CRM14 (or, if required, CRM15). It is essential that the relevant forms are filled out carefully and accurately with the Requested Person at the initial appearance, since mistakes and omissions can lead to severe delays in applications being made, processed and/or accepted.
Certificates for counsel
Where a Requested Person is granted legal aid, the starting point is that the representation order will only cover work done by a solicitor, not by counsel. However, section 27 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and the Criminal Legal Aid (Determinations by a Court and Choice of Representative) Regulations 2013 enable the Court to extend the representation order to include representation by an advocate as well as a litigator. Such an application can only be granted if there are circumstances which make the proceedings “unusually grave or difficult” and representation by an advocate would be “desirable” (regulation 16). Regulation 17 provides that Queen’s Counsel can be instructed where the court determines that the Requested Person would not be adequately represented except by a Queen’s Counsel or more than one advocate.
Such applications must be made in writing to one of a small number of appropriate Judges who are empowered by the Senior District Judge to consider them. It should be noted that where an application to extend the representation order is granted, this will take effect from the date of the judge’s decision, or, if a different date is specified in the decision, that date.
 Section 71(1).
 If the Requesting State has been designated by the Secretary of State, then “information” will be read as replacing the requirement for “evidence” (s.71(4)).
 Section 71(3)(a).
 Section 71(3)(b).
 Section 4(2) and 72(2).
 Sections 4(4) and Section 72(5).
 BH and KAS or H v The Lord Advocate  HCJAC 77.
 Sections 4(3) and 72(3).
 Section 72(4)(a); or if the Secretary of State decides under section 126 that the extradition request is not to continue: section 72(4)(b).
 Sections 4(5) and Section 72(6).
 R. (on the application of Nikonovs) v Governor of Brixton Prison  EWHC 2405 (Admin);  1 WLR 1518.
 The judge may be any justice of the peace, not just a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) who has been designated as an “appropriate judge” by the Lord Chief Justice under sections 67 and 139.
 Section 73(2).
 Section 73(1).
 If the Requesting State has been designated by the Secretary of State, then “information” will be read as replacing the requirement for “evidence” (section 73(5)).
 Section 73(4)(a).
 Section 73(4)(b).
 Section 73(6)-(8).
 Section 74(4)(a); or unless the Secretary of State decides that a competing extradition request should take precedence: s.74(4)(b).
 Section 74(11)(b).
 See article 4 of The Extradition Act (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003 SI 3334 of 2003 for a list of Part 2 territories where the required period is longer than 45 days, and relevant period for each territory.
 Although section 74B(5) provides that the Secretary of State can change the “designated authority” by regulations.
 Although the offence need only attract a sentence of at least 12 months in the Requesting State (s.74B(10)(e)). These requirements do not apply where section 135(5) is relied on, i.e. the offence is listed in section 137(6) (e.g. crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court).
 Although the actual sentence imposed need only be 4 months or more: s.138(3)(c). Where sections 138(4) (extra-territorial offences) or 138(5) (offences listed in section 136(6)) are relied on, there is no requirement that the conduct must be punishable by at least three years’ imprisonment if it was committed in the UK.
 It should be noted that section 74B(3) provides that a certificate may be withdrawn and reissued on the basis of the same request, so long as the Requested Person has not yet been arrested. Thus, if a certificate is imperfect or incomplete, the NCA can simply withdraw it and issue a new one at any time before the Requested Person has been arrested in reliance on it. But if the Requested Person has been arrested, and the appropriate Judge discharges them, then the NCA would only be able to issue another certificate in relation to a freshly issued request.
 Under section 74D(4), (7) and (8), the judge may adjourn the proceedings for up to 72 hours (excluding weekends and bank holidays) to allow for more evidence/information to be produced if certain criteria are met.
 Section 74D(3)
 Section 7(2) and 7(3).
 Nur v Public Prosecutor  EWHC 1874 (Admin), at .
 Section 78(4)(a).
 Sections 8(1)(b), 72(7)(a), 74(7)(a), and 74E(1)(a).
 Sections 8(1)(c), 72(7)(b), 74(7)(b), and 74E(1)(b).
 Section 8(1)(a)) and 75(1). In a Part 1 case, section 8(4) provides that the date fixed cannot be later than the end of the permitted period, which is 21 days starting with the date of arrest. In a Part 2 case, the permitted period is two months starting with the date on which the person first appears or is brought before the judge (s.75(2)). If, before the date fixed for the extradition hearing, a party to the proceedings applies to the judge for a later date to be fixed and the judge believes it to be in the interests of justice to do so, they may fix a later date (s.8(4) and 75(3)). However, if the extradition hearing does not begin on or before the date fixed under this section and the person applies to the judge to be discharged, the judge must order their discharge (s.8(7) and 75(4)). In a Part 1 case, this power need not be exercised if “reasonable cause is shown for the delay” (s.8(7)). An application for discharge on this basis must be made at the first hearing after the deadline for opening the extradition hearing: R. (on the application of Asliturk) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court  EWHC 2148 (Admin);  1 W.L.R. 1139. In reality, such applications can be easily avoided by formally opening the extradition hearing and adjourning without any rulings.
 Section 8(4).
 Section 75(2).
 Section 76(1) and (2).
 Section 76(3).
 Section 8(3) and 72(8).
 Section 198 of the 2003 Act, amending the Bail Act 1976 to insert section 4(2B) to the Bail Act 1976. This removes the presumption in favour of bail in relation to a person who is unlawfully at large after conviction of an offence in the requesting territory.
 In some cases, the court has imposed a condition of bail that the Requested Person’s partner and, potentially, children, also surrender their identity documents. Whilst the Court cannot refuse to give these documents back the fact that they are surrendered can go some way towards allaying fears that the Requested Person might abscond.
 Section 128(6), Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980.
 Schedule 1, Part IIA, Paragraph 2, Bail Act 1976.
 Schedule 1, Part IIA, Paragraph 3, Bail Act 1976.
 Schedule 1, Part IIA, Paragraph 1 Bail Act 1976.
 Janet Tighe v High Court Dublin, Republic of Ireland  EWHC 3313 (Admin).
 Section 1(4) of the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993.
 Section 1(5) of the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993.
 Section 1(6) of the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993.
 Section 1(7) of the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993.
 Section 1(8) of the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993.
 Section 1(9) of the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993.
 See also sections 22-23 (Part 1) and Sections 88-89 (Part 2), which apply where the appropriate judge is informed that the Requested Person has been charged with an offence or is required to serve a sentence in the UK, after the extradition hearing has opened but before it has ended; and sections 36B (Part 1) and 118C (Part 2), which make similar provision where the appropriate judge is informed of a domestic charge or sentence after an extradition order has been made, but before it has been carried out.
 Cf. R (on the application of Nekrosius v Government of Switzerland  EWHC 3080 (Admin).
 Maksimas Proskinas v Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania  EWHC 4126 (Admin).
 Sections 52 and 119 of the 2003 Act.
 The provisions under Part 2 are covered in the chapter dealing with the Secretary of State’s role.
 Sections 180(6) and 181(6).
 Sections 180(5) and 181(5). The judge also has a discretion to order discharge on the deferred matter, even where the period for ordering resumption has not yet elapsed, and even where extradition on the deferred matter was previously ordered: sections 180(4) and 181(4).