PART 3. THE RESPONDENT’S REQUEST
PART 3. THE RESPONDENT’S REQUEST
The Respondent requested two things. First, that I should defer handing down the original judgment to permit representations on process and substance in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Andrysiewicz [2025] UKSC 23 (“SC”). As I said in Part 1 (§1 above), I agreed to that request. Second, that I should revisit the analysis in the original judgment (Part 2) and reverse the outcome of the case. That means the Appellant would be extradited after all, so that the French authorities could make their decision on whether his 5-hour EMC is or is not EMHA under the Code. Whether to accede to that request, and what the consequence is, are the subject of the remaining paragraphs below. I have decided not to change my decision.
- Heading
- FORDHAM J
- PART 2. THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT
- Qualifying Curfew in UK and French Domestic Law
- Four Components
- A and Doga
- Expert Evidence and the Chance to Respond
- Further Information and a Reply
- Background
- Evidence Ventilated in Previous Cases
- A Sole Viable Point
- The Article 26/624 Mechanism
- Deprivation of Liberty
- Article 716-4 of the French Code
- “Detention” and ‘Exclusive Competence’ of the IJA
- Responsibilities of the EJA
- These EMCs are not a Deprivation of Liberty
- Restriction of Liberty
- Article 142-11 of the French Code
- The French Appellate Courts
- The French Supreme Court’s Review Role
- Qualifying Curfew and ‘Exclusive Competence’ of the IJA
- EMHA is an Evaluative Question
- Article 142-11 is a Duty
- Very Clear Cut
- The Evidence
- This Case
- Conclusion
- PART 3. THE RESPONDENT’S REQUEST
- Andrysiewicz
- The Request
- Injustice
- Very Clear-Cut
- Conclusions
![AC-2023-LON-001921 - [2025] EWHC 1416 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png)