Hubner v District Court of Prostejov Czech Republic & Anor

Procedural rules cannot alter or supplement the substantive conditions for extradition enacted by Parliament. Although the Criminal Procedure Rules apply in principle to extradition proceedings, their overriding objective governs the exercise of procedural powers and does not create a free-standing power to refuse extradition because the underlying offence appears trivial. Where the statutory extradition conditions are satisfied, refusal on abuse-of-process grounds remains exceptional. It may arise in circumstances such as an improper purpose or bad faith, but not merely because the offence is minor or the sentence is considered disproportionate, absent a sufficiently clear and exceptional case.

The claimant appealed against a decision ordering his extradition to the Czech Republic under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003. The European Arrest Warrant concerned a conviction for obtaining petrol without payment, involving a sum of just over £20, and a sentence of five months' imprisonment. The claimant had earlier convictions for theft and argued that extradition should be refused because the offence was too trivial.

He relied on the overriding objective in Rule 1 of the Criminal Procedure Rules, submitting that extradition would be unjust having regard to the gravity of the offence and the consequences for him. The central issue was whether those procedural rules conferred an independent power to refuse extradition on that basis.

1. Appeal dismissed. The statutory extradition conditions were satisfied, including the criterion relating to a sentence of four months or more.
2. The Criminal Procedure Rules apply in principle to extradition proceedings because extradition proceedings are criminal proceedings of a special kind. Their overriding objective requires the court to deal with cases justly when exercising procedural powers. This was consistent with R (on the application of the Government of the United States of America) v Bow street Magistrates' Court [2006] EWHC 2256.
3. The Rules are procedural. Rules made by the Statutory Rules Committee cannot modify or supplement an Act of Parliament, and Rule 1 cannot create an additional substantive exception to extradition for cases considered too trivial.
4. There is therefore no self-standing judicial power to refuse extradition merely because the offence is trivial. Abuse of process may exceptionally justify refusal where, for example, extradition is sought for an improper purpose or in bad faith. That possibility does not provide a general proportionality jurisdiction.
5. The court observed that the real concern might instead be the proportionality of the sentence. However, the offence formed part of a succession of minor thefts, and it was not apparent that either the offence was trivial in context or the sentence manifestly disproportionate or unjust.

Mr Justice David Clarke agreed with Lord Justice Elias.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The claimant appealed against the extradition decision. The judgment does not state a citation for the decision below. The appeal was dismissed.