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.
QBD (Admin) (Farbey J)
28 November 2019
A requested person’s extradition to Poland for fraud was disproportionate, oppressive due to the passage of time, and breached ECHR art.8. The district judge’s reasoning regarding the fact that the individual was not a fugitive had been unclear, he had erred in finding that the individual had previous convictions for fraud, and he had failed to give adequate weight to the fact that 19 years had passed since the offending.
QBD (Admin) (Stuart-Smith J)
21 November 2019
Fresh evidence submitted by a requested person did not support the conclusion that her two young children would be left homeless if she was extradited, but rather that her partner would be permitted to look after them. Accordingly, her extradition to Lithuania to face trial for the offence of possession with intent to supply class A drugs did not breach ECHR art.8.
DC (Hamblen LJ, Lane J)
6 November 2019
An appeal on points of law to Italy’s Court of Cassation in criminal proceedings was not an “ordinary appeal” for the purposes of Decision 2002/584 art.4a and the Extradition Act 2003 s.20; it was not the “trial resulting in the decision” which a requested person had a right to attend.
QBD (Admin) (Holman J)
10 October 2019
It was disproportionate to extradite an individual to Hungary for allegedly stealing £400 worth of goods from a neighbour where seven-and-a-half years had passed since the alleged offence had taken place, and the appellant had been questioned in Hungary about the burglary three years earlier but the authorities had allowed him to return to the UK.
CA (Crim Div) (Haddon-Cave LJ, Cockerill J, Judge Bate)
8 October 2019
Applying the rule of speciality, an extradition defendant should only be dealt with for the offences detailed in the European Arrest Warrant. Furthermore, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s.240ZA and s.243, time spent in custody awaiting extradition counted towards a subsequent sentence of imprisonment.
QBD (Admin) (Singh LJ, Sweeney J)
8 October 2019
The Belgium prosecutor who had issued a conviction European arrest warrant for a requested person was a “judicial authority” for the purposes of Decision 2002/584 art.6 as they had been independent of the executive and had determined whether the criteria under Belgian law for the issue of the EAW had been met.
 UKUT 262 (AAC)
UT (AAC) (Judge Mitchell)
3 September 2019
For the purposes of the qualified exemption from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 s.30, in respect of information relating to investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities, competing public interests were to be assessed according to the circumstances as they stood when the public authority refused a request for information.