Legal News

The Applicant was detained on remand in Germany pending his extradition to the United Kingdom, following the issue of a European Arrest Warrant. Both domestic and European law require that remand days in Germany are to count towards a criminal sentence in the United Kingdom – this issue was agreed upon between both parties.

The Respondent, despite being on notice of the fact that the sentence calculation of the Applicant did not take remand days into account, sought to ensure that the Applicant remained in prison until the end of his incorrectly calculated custodial sentence. The Respondent sought to argue that the time spent on remand in Germany was not brought to the attention of the Judge at sentencing, and as such, the High Court did not have adequate jurisdiction to determine this claim. The Respondent’s position was that any issue taken with sentencing at this stage was for the Criminal Court of Appeal.

The Applicant’s position was straightforward: had the remand days in Germany been counted towards his criminal sentence in the United Kingdom, as required by law, he would no longer be imprisoned. In order to ensure that the Applicant was no longer deprived of his liberty, a writ of Habeas Corpus was sought.

The Respondent was compelled to release the Applicant from prison following the decision of Holgate J to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus on 26 August 2016. Although rarely used nowadays, a writ of Habeas Corpus is still to be considered a fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action, as evidenced by this particular case.

About the author - Sheroy Zaq

Sheroy is committed to ensuring that all prisoners are provided with access to justice and the opportunity to progress through the prison system, placing a clear emphasis on assisting vulnerable prisoners in need of a heightened degree of care within the prison estate. He is qualified as a Level 2 Senior Caseworker under the Immigration & Asylum Accreditation Scheme, permitting him to assist a far-reaching range of clients, more specifically, those with physical and mental vulnerabilities. Sheroy regularly represented individuals seeking to make initial claims for asylum, in addition to conducting appeals against adverse decisions to the First-Tier / Upper Tribunal.