Slivka v District Court of Prague

Article 8 may provide a defence to extradition, but the court must conduct a genuine proportionality assessment rather than apply exceptionality as an inflexible formula. The strong public interest in honouring extradition arrangements carries great weight. In practice, striking and unusual facts are required before extradition for an established conviction and sentence will be disproportionate. The existence of family life, children, established residence, or the resulting separation during imprisonment will ordinarily be insufficient without an exceptional feature distinguishing the case from ordinary consequences of extradition.

The appellant had been convicted and sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment in the Czech Republic. After entering the United Kingdom, he established family and private life here and obtained indefinite leave to remain. A European arrest warrant was issued for enforcement of the outstanding sentence.

The Senior District Judge ordered extradition under section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003. The appellant appealed under section 26, arguing that extradition would unjustifiably interfere with his private and family life under Article 8 of the Convention. The central issue was whether the circumstances were sufficiently exceptional to make extradition disproportionate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge was entitled to order extradition. Article 8 did not provide a defence.
2. Under section 21(1) of the Extradition Act 2003, the court had to decide whether extradition would be compatible with Convention rights. Article 8 required consideration of whether the interference with private or family life was proportionate to the legitimate aim of honouring extradition arrangements.
3. The court adopted the approach stated in Jaso, Lopez and Hernandez v Central Criminal Court No 2, Madrid [2007] EWHC 2983 (Admin). Exceptionality should not be treated as a separate legal test or formula. It was, however, a practical consequence of the substantial public interest in extradition that striking and unusual facts would ordinarily be necessary before extradition could be disproportionate.
4. The public interest in honouring extradition treaties and securing the administration of criminal justice between states carried great weight. The fact that the requested person had already been convicted and sentenced did not materially reduce the Article 8 analysis. Separation from family during imprisonment was a foreseeable consequence of the sentence, whether imprisonment occurred nearby or abroad.
5. The appellant’s claimed lack of legal representation at trial and appeal, racial discrimination, long residence, clean record, indefinite leave to remain, family circumstances, children, benefits and possible disruption did not amount to a truly exceptional feature. The appeal was dismissed.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal against the extradition order dismissed.
2. City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Senior District Judge Workman ordered extradition on 8 January 2008 under section 21(3) of the Extradition Act 2003.