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.
A district judge had erred in finding that delay in issuing a European arrest warrant meant that an individual’s extradition to Germany to face trial for a crime allegedly committed in 1993 would breach ECHR art.8. State authorities had not been culpable for the delay as the individual had been living in the UK as a fugitive, and the judge had failed to balance the various factors and explain why the delay meant that the art.8 balance fell against extradition. The court strongly recommended that decision-makers follow the guidance set out in Poland v Celinski  EWHC 1274 (Admin) when determining whether a course of action was proportionate in art.8 terms.
The Protocol and Good Practice Model: Disclosure of Information in Cases of Alleged Child Abuse and Linked Criminal and Care Directions Hearings was not working as it should and might need to be updated and improved.