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.
In assessing the loss caused by offences of fraudulently removing items of wreck without declaring them to the receiver contrary to the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 s.236(1), it was not appropriate to deduct the costs that owners of the wreck would have had to incur if their property had been salvaged legitimately.
Where a European arrest warrant did not contain the standard wording of an accusation warrant seeking to secure the requested person for the purposes of a prosecution, judges could not rely on the principle that the warrant alone sufficed to show that there had been a decision to charge or try so that extradition was not barred under the Extradition Act 2003 s.12A.
Residents liable to pay council tax were not under any general legal duty to notify the local authority of their continuing residence in the property in question. A judge had therefore been correct to make a terminating ruling where an individual had been charged under the Fraud Act 2006 s.3 with dishonestly failing to disclose that she was living at a property so as to avoid paying council tax in respect of it.