UK case law
Demiray v HM Prison Holloway
[2005] EWHC ADMIN 109 · High Court (Administrative Court) · 2005
The verbatim text of this UK judgment. Sourced directly from The National Archives Find Case Law. Not an AI summary, not a paraphrase — every word below is the original ruling, under Crown copyright and the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Full judgment
1. MR JUSTICE MOSES: This was an application firstly for an adjournment of the application for habeas corpus and for an application for a writ of habeas corpus . It appeared that this applicant, a Turkish Cypriot, was represented when he lodged a claim challenging his detention pursuant to an order for committal on conditional bail by Bow Street Magistrates' Court on 10 May 2004, awaiting the decision of the Secretary of State for the Home Department in response to a request for extradition by the Government of Turkey.
2. This applicant faced charges of forgery and theft. The grounds advanced were delay, of which it was alleged the Turkish authorities were guilty in seeking extradition and the arrest of the applicant. The claim form stated that the applicant would make a statement supporting the claim. No such statement has ever been forthcoming. All that has happened is that two medical notes were sent to the court. One is dated 12 January 2005 in which a doctor said that he had examined the applicant on that day and advised him that he should refrain from work for four weeks due to depression. Another medical report was sent to the court dated 25 January 2005, saying that the same doctor had advised the applicant on that day that he should refrain from work for one week due to febrile URTI (which I interpret as being upper respiratory tract infection).
3. The fax appears to have been sent to a court manager by chartered accountants, who give their address and telephone number (Hurshens). When the case was called on, nobody appeared on behalf of this applicant and we sought to make enquiries of Hurshens Chartered Accountants, since somebody (Ertan Hurer) was named on the fax. The time is now 12.45 and no response has been received. I take the view that that is ample time if this claim was being seriously pursued. No adjournment has been granted by the court, and in those circumstances the claimant should either have appeared or seen that he was represented. He has not done so. I will dismiss this claim on the ground that he has failed to appear to pursue it.
4. MR JUSTICE RICHARDS: So do I.
5. MR JUSTICE MOSES: No other application?
6. MISS LLOYD-JACOB: No, My Lord.