Although the UK was not a safe haven for criminals, it was disproportionate to extradite a requested person pursuant to a conviction European arrest warrant where he had changed his behaviour and where there was a relatively short time remaining on his sentence for drug related offences.
Accusation European arrest warrants issued for two Italian nationals had been wholly deficient by failing entirely to express with sufficient clarity what offences the requested persons would be prosecuted for, as required by the Extradition Act 2003 s.2(4)(c). The deficiencies were not simply lacunae that could be made good by further information, so the further information provided by Italy to explain the warrants was inadmissible.
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.
In the context of a continuing offence, the speciality rule did not preclude the Serious Fraud Office from adducing evidence of conduct which fell outside the relevant time period to prove the commission of an offence which fell within it. The rule was concerned with offences, not evidence.
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.