Stojkova, R (on the application of) v District Court In Okresny

On an extradition appeal, the appellant bears the burden of showing a causal link between the proposed extradition and a risk of discriminatory punishment, detention or restriction. The evidence must establish reasonable grounds, a reasonable chance or a serious possibility of that risk. A general assertion of prejudice is insufficient.

There is a rebuttable presumption that a requesting state will comply with its international and Convention obligations. The presumption may be displaced by evidence addressing the appellant’s particular circumstances. An appellate court will not interfere with a district judge’s factual conclusion where the evidence was assessed and the conclusion was open to the judge. Separation from children, although capable of causing hardship, does not alone justify refusal of extradition.

The claimant appealed against an order made by District Judge Zani on 26 August 2010 for her extradition to Slovakia under a European arrest warrant. The warrant concerned convictions for possession of a narcotic drug and theft, resulting in a sentence of four years’ imprisonment.

The appeal relied on 2003 Act, section 13(b), and section 21 read with article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The claimant alleged that her Roma ethnicity and sexual orientation created a risk of discriminatory or inhuman treatment in custody. She also relied on her family life in the United Kingdom and the fact that she had twins.

The central issues were whether the evidence displaced the presumption that Slovakia would comply with its international obligations and whether the district judge had been entitled to reject the alleged risks.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The district judge had been entitled to order extradition to Slovakia.

2. Under section 13(b) of the 2003 Act, the appellant had to show a causal link between the warrant, detention, prosecution, punishment or trial prejudice and her race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions. Following the approach stated in Fernandez v Government of Singapore [1971] 1 WLR 987, the evidence had to establish reasonable grounds for thinking, a reasonable chance, or a serious possibility that the relevant prejudice or adverse treatment would occur.

3. The district judge had assessed the evidence and was entitled to conclude that it did not establish the required risk. There was a rebuttable presumption that Slovakia would comply with its Convention and international treaty obligations. The evidence concerning the claimant’s particular circumstances did not displace that presumption.

4. The arguments under section 21 and article 3 overlapped substantially with the section 13 argument. The district judge had approached the issue correctly and had been entitled to conclude that the claimant had not shown a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment by prison staff, prisoners or persons associated with her husband.

5. The claimant did not pursue the article 8 argument. The hardship caused by separating a prisoner from her children did not, without more, justify interference with an extradition order.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the extradition order was dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates Court: The claimant was arrested on 9 February 2010, hearings took place on 24 June and 12 August 2010, and District Judge Zani ordered extradition on 26 August 2010.