EXTRADITION

[2018] EWHC 2848 (Admin) [2018] EWHC 2848 (Admin)

There was sufficient concern about Polish judicial independence that persons requested by Poland under European arrest warrants should have the opportunity to advance reasons why they might have an exceptional case requiring an individual assessment to see whether there were substantial grounds for believing that they individually ran a real risk of a breach of their rights to a fair trial, under the test set out in Minister for Justice and Equality v LM (C-216/18 PPU) EU:C:2018:586. Those sought for ordinary criminal offences, with no political or sensitive content, seemed unlikely to be able to establish that risk.

A 78-year-old man whose extradition to the Falkland Islands was sought in order to prosecute him for 12 alleged historic sexual abuse offences from the mid-1980s was bailed. The unusual features of the case, including the individual’s ill-health and his caring responsibilities, and the fact that he had not offended since completing a sex offenders’ treatment programme in 2002, meant that the risks of him absconding or committing further offences were minimal.

[2018] EWHC 2809 (Admin) [2018] EWHC 2809 (Admin)

A district judge considering an extradition request had erred in the ECHR art.8 balancing exercise when considering the seriousness of the requested person’s offence. He had been convicted of facilitating unauthorised entry and residence, not human trafficking, and had been offered a non-custodial alternative sentence, showing that the requesting state did not consider the offence to be that serious. Coupled with the nine-year delay between arrest and trial, extradition would disproportionately interfere with his art.8 rights.

The court refused to grant bail to a Romanian national pending the determination of her extradition proceedings; she did not have sufficient community ties in the UK and there were substantial grounds to believe that she would fail to surrender.

[2018] EWHC 2691 (Admin) [2018] EWHC 2691 (Admin)

Lithuania had given a sufficient assurance that the appellant, whose extradition had been ordered pursuant to an accusation warrant, would not face a real risk of treatment contrary to ECHR art.3 if held in a particular remand prison.