A conspiracy to defraud, which had only affected private investors in the UK and Canada, but which involved US shares and companies, was an appropriate case for trial in the US rather than in the UK, especially in circumstances where several of the co-conspirators were already on trial in the US after what had proved to be a lengthy and complicated investigation.
A Polish national’s extradition to serve a suspended one-year sentence for an offence of attempted theft of a car radio committed in 2010 would not amount to a disproportionate interference with his rights under ECHR art.8. Any hardship suffered by his partner would not be severe, and although the original offence was not very serious and had taken place many years ago, the Polish authorities had taken it seriously enough to impose a serious criminal sentence and request his return to serve it.
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.