Extradition was a proportionate interference with the private life of an individual convicted of serious offences of domestic violence despite an unexplained delay of more than eight years in reissuing a European arrest warrant. A district judge had been wrong to discharge him.
The court stayed an appeal against an individual’s extradition to Lithuania to face a criminal trial. There was an international consensus that conditions in Lithuanian remand prisons were such that there was real risk of prisoners’ ECHR art.3 rights being violated, and the Lithuanian authorities were given the opportunity to provide a satisfactory assurance that the requested individual would not be remanded in custody pending trial in conditions that violated art.3.
Two requested persons in extradition proceedings were refused bail in light of the serious nature of their offending in Italy, including the fact that one of them had been convicted of falsifying personal documents. There was a risk that if the case went against them they would abscond.
The fact that a person had served several months in detention in the UK in immigration detention in respect of deportation or in relation to his extradition, was only one factor in determining whether it would be proportionate to extradite him. It was not for the United Kingdom courts to take a view on whether or not a person had served a sufficient sentence.
Where it was likely that an individual who challenged his extradition to Romania had been complicit in the production of a forged document purporting to come from the Romanian authorities, the court was entitled to refuse an application for conditional bail on the basis that it could be satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would fail to surrender to custody or interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice.