The Court of Appeal has dismissed Julian Myerscough’s appeal against a High Court finding that he was lawfully detained at Arbour Hill Prison while awaiting surrender to the United Kingdom.
The appeal concerned the meaning of a High Court order staying parts of an earlier surrender order. Myerscough argued that the stay ended when a separate constitutional inquiry into his detention concluded in June 2016. If so, he said, statutory surrender deadlines had expired and his continued detention was unlawful.
The Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered on 25 November 2016 by Mr Justice Edwards, held that the stay remained in force until a further court order removed it. The court dismissed the appeal on all substantive grounds. It also refused Myerscough’s request for a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Myerscough was the subject of a European arrest warrant issued in the United Kingdom. He had been convicted there of 13 offences involving indecent images of a child and three offences of breaching a sexual offences prevention order, and was on bail awaiting sentence when he failed to attend court. The warrant sought his return to be sentenced. The High Court ordered his surrender in February 2016 in relation to the 13 image offences; he had successfully resisted surrender on the other counts.
In March 2016, while Myerscough pursued an inquiry under Article 40 of the Constitution into the lawfulness of his detention, the High Court stayed the surrender order and related directions “pending further Order herein”. The inquiry concluded in June, with the High Court finding his detention lawful and rejecting his constitutional challenge. Myerscough did not appeal that decision. He then brought a second inquiry, arguing the stay had expired and that the time for surrender had run out. The High Court rejected that argument, prompting this appeal.
The Court of Appeal said the operative terms of the March stay order were clear. It relied on an affidavit describing how the judge had discussed the stay’s duration with counsel and decided it should last until a further order. The court noted that account was not disputed. It also rejected the argument that Myerscough had been denied fair procedures when the High Court allowed only a short adjournment: his legal team had relied on the order and was responsible for obtaining its perfected copy before bringing the inquiry.
The court found no material issue of EU law requiring a reference. It said the stay had lawfully paused the surrender process to facilitate the constitutional inquiry. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the High Court’s finding of lawful detention undisturbed. The Court of Appeal reserved its decisions on first-instance inquiry costs and a recommendation under the Legal Aid (Custody Issues) Scheme for further submissions.