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.
RIGHT TO RESPECT FOR PRIVATE AND FAMILY LIFE
The secretary of state had been entitled not to order the deportation under the Tariff-Expired Removal Scheme of an Irish national whose minimum term of a sentence of imprisonment for public protection had expired.
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.
By failing to put in place measures to ensure that prison officers in a contracted-out prison were adequately trained in the strip searching of female and transgender prisoners, the secretary of state had breached his obligation to ensure, so far as was reasonably practicable, that prisoners were protected from violations of their rights under ECHR art.3 and art.8.
The conclusion in Poland v Celinski  EWHC 1274 (Admin) that the public interest in upholding extradition would require very strong counter-balancing factors before extradition could be disproportionate under ECHR art.8 was essentially the same as the test set out in R. (on the application of HH) v Westminster City Magistrates’ Court  UKSC 25, and did not depart from it.