A district judge had been entitled to conclude that an offender’s extradition to Poland would not disproportionately interfere with his rights under ECHR art.8. Although he had family ties in the UK, he was a 28-year-old single man with no dependants.
A district judge had made no error in finding that a European arrest warrant had been sufficiently particularised, that the offence in question met the dual criminality requirements of the Extradition Act 2003, and that extradition was not disproportionate with respect to the ECHR art.8 rights of the requested person and her family.
A district judge had been entitled to conclude that it would not be unjust or oppressive to extradite an accused to Poland by reason of the passage of time, despite the fact that there had been an 11-year delay between the date of the alleged extradition offences and his arrest.
The extradition of a Czech Republic national who had been convicted of fraud offences in his absence was not unjust or oppressive, nor did it constitute an interference with his ECHR art.8 rights, notwithstanding the nine-year delay between the date of sentence and certification of the European arrest warrant. The district judge had correctly characterised the EAW as a conviction warrant and had taken full account of the passage of time.
When dismissing an application for judicial review of a refusal to discharge an extradition order following delay in removal caused by administrative errors, the court considered the meaning of “reasonable cause” in the Extradition Act 2003 s.36(8) and the impact of decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Supreme Court of Ireland.