An individual charged with offences in France, who had been permitted to return to the Netherlands before her conviction and sentence were issued, was not a fugitive under the Extradition Act 2003 s.14. She had not knowingly placed herself beyond the reach of French justice; she had already been beyond its reach. She was therefore permitted to rely on delay by France in seeking her extradition.
Challenges to extradition based on prison conditions in the requesting state should be properly evidenced. Clear evidence was required relating to the specific circumstances that the requested person would face.
An appeal by a Polish national against an order for his extradition to answer a charge of theft relating to the importation of goods from England to Poland was allowed where a district judge had erred in categorising the offence as an extradition offence. It could not be established with certainty where the appropriation of the goods had taken place, the requesting authority’s reliance on where the harm was felt was insufficient to establish any relevant conduct in Poland and the UK police had found no evidence to suggest any intention to permanently deprive the victims of the goods, which was an integral part of theft.
Where assurances given by the authorities in a State seeking the extradition of a requested person were ambiguous and gave rise to doubts over whether prison conditions would comply with ECHR art.3 throughout a sentence, a court should seek clarification from them before concluding that extradition would create a real risk of inhuman and degrading treatment.
The court refused an application to amend grounds of appeal against an extradition order to France due to the appellant’s delay in seeking permission. Further, it dismissed the appellant’s appeal as any concerns that had existed regarding his ECHR art.3 rights had been allayed by assurances given by the French judicial authority concerning penal institutions in which he might be detained.