Public Prosecutors Office of the Athens Court of Appeal v O'Connor (Northern Ireland) [2022] UKSC 4 (02 February 2022)
Citation:Public Prosecutors Office of the Athens Court of Appeal v O'Connor (Northern Ireland) [2022] UKSC 4 (02 February 2022)
Subjects invoked: '12. Procedure', '52. Legal Services','86. Police Process',
Rule of thumb:What happens if you have a legal case in progress and you miss a deadline through genuine human error? Is your case doomed? No, if your solicitor genuinely & honestly missed it through human error and can explain this to the Court, then you should get an extension, particularly if you did not miss the deadline by much.
Background facts:
This case invoked the subject of police processes, procedure & legal sources. In particular it invoked the principle of estoppel and what happens if people miss an important deadline in extradition processes through the genuine human error of their legal representative.
The material facts of this case were that O’Connor was accused of committing a crime in Greece. The Athens Prosecution Service issued a European arrest warrant for him and then lodged an application in the Northern Irish Court for an extradition order to O’Connor. O’Connor instructed a solicitor to oppose this extradition order on the grounds that the conditions in the Greek prison system violated the Article 2 right against degrading conditions, particularly for foreign prisoners. However, through genuine human error and a slight misreading of a complex letter, the deadline for opposing this was missed by O’Connor’s solicitor.
The Greek Prosecutors argued that as O’Connor had missed the deadline to oppose his extradition, by the principle of estoppel this meant that O’Connor was not opposing it and this could not then be changed later. The Greek Prosecutors wanted O’Connor to face a criminal trial in Greece and potentially also serve his sentence in Greece as well, and they argued that this was now the position in law with the extradition order not being contested. O’Connor argued that estoppel did not apply when this was only done by genuine human error in misinterpreting Court procedure, particularly in very important legal matters like potential Article 2 human rights violations. O’Connor argued that an exception to the estoppel principle should be made in the circumstances of this case.
Judgment:
The Court upheld the arguments of O’Connor and an exception to the estoppel principle was made. The Court held that O’Connor should be granted an extension to the missed deadline in circumstances like these, and that there should be a full hearing on whether he should be deported to Greece or have the trial in Northern Ireland. It was affirmed that a UK citizen should not be sent to degrading conditions abroad without the chance to properly contest the legalities of this because of a genuine human error by a person’s lawyer in missing an administrative deadline. The matter was remitted back to the Northern Irish Courts to have O’Connor’s extradition hearing heard in full about potential prison conditions in Greece etc.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘The answer I provide to the certified question, at para 17 above, is that in circumstances where notice of application for leave to appeal was not given within the permitted period, the court can entertain the application if the person ordered to be extradited had himself done everything reasonably possible to ensure that the notice was given as soon as it could be given, even though his legal representative had failed to do so’, Lord Stephens at 54
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.