[2020] EWHC 1800 (Admin)
[2020] EWHC 1800 (Admin)
DC (Males LJ, Julian Knowles J)
13 July 2020

The court examined the scope of its discretion in the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 r.50.17(6)(a) to extend time for appealing in extradition cases. The rule was in similar terms to the power in CPR r.3.1(2)(a) to grant relief from sanctions in civil cases. As long as the various interests applicable specifically to extradition cases were borne in mind, the guidance given in Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906 applied in an extradition context.

QBD (Admin) (Kerr J)
18 June 2020

A district judge had not erred in ordering the extradition of a Romanian national under a conviction European arrest warrant where he knew that criminal proceedings against him had started before he left Romania, he became a fugitive upon his conviction and any delay between the date of the offences and his conviction had not been inordinately long.

[2020] EWHC 1459 (Admin)
[2020] EWHC 1459 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Fordham J)
5 June 2020

The court granted permission to appeal against an individual’s extradition to Poland on the issue of whether legislative changes introduced by the Polish government in 2019-2020 meant that the courts in Poland could no longer be recognised as “judicial authorities” for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003 s.2.

QBD (Admin) (Spencer J)
4 May 2020

The court declined to grant bail to a Polish national where there were substantial grounds for believing that he would fail to submit to custody and would commit further offences if bail was granted.

QBD (Admin) (Fordham J)
30 April 2020

A Polish national’s application for bail in extradition proceedings was allowed where there were no substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk that he would fail to surrender. The court took into consideration new evidence supporting his position that he had communicated his whereabouts to the Polish authorities, concerns for his personal safety amidst the Covid-19 pandemic in prison, his ties to the UK and the fact that his daughter had put up her savings as security.

QBD (Admin) (Dove J)
3 April 2020

There were clear and demonstrable grounds to believe that an individual whose extradition had been sought by the United States for allegedly kidnapping his daughter during a custody visit and threatening and harassing his ex-partner would fail to surrender to bail. His claims that as an asthmatic the prison conditions where he was being held were inadequate in view of the corona virus pandemic were rejected. The prison service owed him a duty of care in accordance with existing guidance and he could take up those issues with the prison authorities.

[2020] EWHC 648 (Admin)
[2020] EWHC 648 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Lane J)
18 March 2020

The court anonymised a requested person and her immediate family in an extradition judgment where the requested person’s daughter suffered from a serious condition such that identification would likely lead to harm to the family. However, a very good case had to be made for a person who had been convicted of a criminal offence abroad to avoid being named in English extradition proceedings.

[2020] EWHC 603 (Admin)
[2020] EWHC 603 (Admin)
DC (Lord Burnett LCJ, William Davis J)
13 March 2020

Where an extradition case had been remitted to a district judge under the Extradition Act 2003 s.106(3), the judge did not have jurisdiction to consider bars to extradition which had not been raised at the original hearing. The requested person had to raise all potential bars to extradition at the original hearing.

QBD (Admin) (Steyn J)
10 March 2020

There was no real risk of a requested person’s ECHR art.3 rights being breached if he was extradited to Romania where further information and assurances subsequently provided by the judicial authority had addressed the relevant issues, such as the time he would be able to spend outside his cell during a quarantine period, and there was no remaining lack of clarity.

QBD (Admin) (Swift J)
5 March 2020

An individual’s appeal against his extradition to Portugal was dismissed. His European arrest warrant, listing 127 offences relating to the forgery and use of documents, had provided sufficient information under the Extradition Act 2003 s.2(4) to establish the threshold requirement for an EAW.

Scroll to top