[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.

[2020] EWHC 409 (Admin)
[2020] EWHC 409 (Admin)
QBD (Admin) (Nicol J)
25 February 2020

The mental condition of a man who claimed to have been the victim of trafficking was not such as to render his extradition to the Czech Republic oppressive or a disproportionate interference with his right to private or family life under ECHR art.8.

[2020] EWHC 200 (Admin)
[2020] EWHC 200 (Admin)
DC (Dingemans LJ, Spencer J)
6 February 2020

Although accused of serious crimes, two requested persons were discharged from extradition proceedings after India had failed to provide assurances that their potential life sentences would be reducible until 45 minutes before judgment was due to be handed down. India had known that assurances were required and should have indicated to the judge that it intended to seek them, so that a timetable could be prepared.

QBD (Admin) (Holman J)
4 February 2020

An appeal against extradition to Poland was allowed on the basis of fresh evidence both as to the difficult life history of the appellant and his partner and the circumstances of their relationship since the extradition hearing. The offender had already undergone significant punishment and, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, the ECHR art.8 rights of the appellant and his partner outweighed the normally weighty public interest in extradition.

QBD (Admin) (Lewis J)
22 January 2020

A Polish offence of insulting a police officer satisfied the requirement of dual criminality in extradition proceedings as the equivalent offence could be found under the Public Order Act 1986 s.5, and the court was satisfied to the criminal standard that, in the instant case, the requested person’s language, rather than being merely insulting, had been abusive such as to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

QBD (Admin) (Supperstone J)
17 December 2019

A Polish national who had allegedly stabbed a victim in Slovenia could not be extradited to Poland as the requirement of the Extradition Act 2003 s.64(4)(b) was not satisfied, namely that the conduct had to constitute an extra-territorial offence under UK law. The relevant extra-territorial offence under UK law would be attempted murder, but it could not be necessarily implied from his conduct that the individual had intended to kill the victim.

DC (Dingemans LJ, Lane J)
17 December 2019

The court dismissed a Turkish national’s appeal against extradition on the basis that it was impossible to say that the judge’s decision had been wrong. He had been entitled to accept that an assurance provided by the Turkish authorities sufficiently mitigated the risk of overcrowding; it had identified that he would be detained in a specific prison, there was nothing to suggest that that prison was overcrowded and, importantly, the authorities had also given a specific assurance that the individual would be accommodated in humane conditions.

Scroll to top