CO/13253/2010 
Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWHC 3784 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
DIVISIONAL COURT 
Royal Courts of Justice 
Strand
London WC2A 2LL 

Wednesday, 19 December 2012
 
B e f o r e:

PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION 
(Sir John Thomas) 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between: 
HALLIGEN 
Appellant

v 

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT 
Respondent 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Computer‑Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of  
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company 
165 Fleet Street  London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
1.	PRESIDENT OF THE QUEENS BENCH DIVISION: There is an application in this case to certify three questions.
2.	Question one, in a case under the Extradition Act 2003, does an appeal judge have discretion to refuse an adjournment to allow grounds of appeal to be amended which, due to incompetent solicitors funded by the state, was submitted at an earlier stage and the new solicitors instructed had three days to prepare any evidence?
3.	Question two, in a case under the Extradition Act 2003, does such a refusal to adjourn and allow the applicant to present his evidence, amount to a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights when combined with negligent conduct on the part of previous solicitors he was barred to produce evidence properly?
4.	Question three, in a case under the Extradition Act 2003, has the appeal judge erred in law by refusing an adjournment and not allowing the appellant to amend his appeal grounds in a case where the original grounds were defective and deemed so by the Supreme Court?  
5.	We have considered the questions.  These questions have a  false premise.  It is very clear from the very extensive documentation that was put before Wilkie J and I that questions formulated on the basis of the incompetent solicitors previously having acted for him are a travesty of the truth.  Every care was taken in this case by those previously acting for the appellant in the light of the fact that the court saw earlier documentation setting out the advice given.  There had been ample time to run the case at the extradition hearing some time ago which the appellant wished to run now, but it was considered that the case should not be run.  In my judgment, it is wrong of solicitors to have framed the questions in these terms.  They do not give rise to any question of law, nor do they give rise conceivably to any question of law of general public importance.  
6.	The court will ask the solicitors to show cause why, first of all, to the extent that this application is funded by legal aid, the matter should not be referred to the legal aid authorities and, secondly, to the Solicitors Regulation Authority.  It does not appear to be proper, on the face of the documents put before the court, for such an application to have been made in the circumstances of this case.  It is being made after the court had made quite clear that there was not any conceivable ground upon which an application could be made to certify a point of law of general public law importance.  This application has been filed on the last possible day and on the day before the United States intended to remove Mr Halligen.  
7.	It seems to me at first sight that this is an abuse of the process of this court.  The solicitor will have until 14 January to reply to what the court has set out before it considers what to do.