It had been open to a judge to conclude that he should exercise his discretion under the Limitation Act 1980 s.33 to allow a former police officer to pursue a late claim in negligence against the police in relation to his heroin addiction and consequent psychiatric illness which he claimed had arisen from his undercover work posing as a drug user.
A district judge had not erred in the weight he had attributed to the delays experienced in a Polish individual’s extradition proceedings. Although he had developed a private life in the UK in excess of ten years, the judge had not been wrong to order his extradition; private life attracted less weight than family life under the ECHR art.8.
The extradition of a UK national to Germany, to face trial for offences relating to his failure as an employer to pay employee social welfare contributions, was not barred under the Extradition Act 2003 s.12. The allegations were not encompassed within an earlier prosecution in Germany for tax-related offences so as to violate the double jeopardy principle.
The extradition of a Czech Republic national who had been convicted of serious fraud offences in his absence was not unjust or oppressive, nor did it constitute an interference with his ECHR art.8 rights or those of his partner, notwithstanding the nine-year delay between the date of sentence and certification of the European arrest warrant. The district judge had correctly identified the factors favouring and militating against extradition.
Where there were concurrent extradition and family proceedings in cases involving requested persons who had children who would be adversely impacted by their surrender to custody, it should be the exception, not the norm, for the extradition proceedings to await the outcome of the family proceedings. It would also be very rare for the Official Solicitor to intervene in extradition cases on behalf of a child.