Puzo v District Court In Kladno Czech Republic

For an extradition objection based on racial prejudice, general evidence of background discrimination is insufficient. The claimant must show a reasonable degree of likelihood, reasonable grounds or reasonable risk that the particular conviction, sentence, detention or restriction will be materially influenced by race. Evidence may include a seriously disproportionate sentence, comparative cases, sentencing guidelines or sentencing remarks indicating racial prejudice.

Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention do not require a perfect system of protection from prison violence. Reasonable protective measures are sufficient. EU anti-discrimination principles provide no freestanding ground to resist an otherwise lawful extradition, and the person resisting removal bears the relevant evidential burden.

The appellant appealed against a decision of District Judge Evans at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court authorising his extradition to the Czech Republic under a European arrest warrant. He had been convicted, in his presence and with legal representation, of robbery and extortion, then sentenced in his absence to four years’ imprisonment.

As a Roma person, he argued that his return was barred by section 13 of the Extradition Act 2003, because his sentence had been influenced by race. He also relied on Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and EU anti-discrimination principles. The central issue was whether the evidence established a reasonable likelihood that his sentence was materially influenced by ethnicity.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant had not established that his four-year sentence was materially influenced by his Roma ethnicity. The conviction itself was not challenged as racially influenced: he had been present at trial, legally represented, and convicted on evidence without any suggestion of perversity or material ethnic prejudice.
2. Section 13 of the Extradition Act 2003 requires an assessment based on a reasonable degree of likelihood, reasonable grounds or reasonable risk. A general background of entrenched discrimination does not, without more, establish racial prejudice in the particular sentencing process.
3. Relevant additional evidence might include a sentence seriously different from that which ought to have been imposed, sentencing guidelines, comparative cases, or sentencing remarks indicating that the sentence may have been materially based on prejudice. The expert evidence was historical, lacked contemporary research, and did not sufficiently connect general discrimination with this sentence.
4. The Article 2 and Article 3 grounds failed. A violation is not established where the requesting state provides a sufficiency of protection against prison violence, including violence against Roma prisoners. The law requires reasonable protective measures, not a perfect system.
5. EU anti-discrimination principles and the cited directive did not create a freestanding ground to resist otherwise lawful extradition. The person resisting removal bears the burden of showing that the relevant legal provision applies. The application for leave to appeal was refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal from the decision of District Judge Evans at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court dismissed. Application for leave to appeal refused.