Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
B E F O R E:
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDY
MR JUSTICE ROYCE
STEFAN TISER
Applicant
-v-
(1) GOVERNOR OF HMP BRIXTON
(2) THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Respondents
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
The Applicant did not appear and was not represented
MR J HINES (instructed by CPS, Casework Directorate) appeared in behalf of the Respondent
J U D G M E N T
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.
______________________________