8.42The balance to be struck in extradition cases is, on the one hand, ensuring that an application is dealt with efficiently, but on the other hand, ensuring that access to justice rights are properly addressed.
8.43We think this is best achieved by providing that once a judge has made liability finding on the NIP, whether the respondent is liable or not, there should be a general right of appeal in relation to that decision by either party, in which they can raise any issue at all that they wish. We are concerned that successive appeals on interlocutory issues and the availability of judicial review may be used by some respondents for the prime purpose of achieving delay. Our proposal is to clarify what rights both a respondent and the Central Authority has in relation to appeals and judicial review.
8.45By making the grounds for appeal this wide, our wish is to enable any matter that a party wishes to test to be argued upon appeal. We think this is preferable to successive appeals on interlocutory orders. Our proposal is that the parties have one right of appeal against a decision of the District Court, and that after the High Court has dealt with that appeal, the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court may grant leave to hear a further appeal but on the very limited grounds that we have specified.