Kurucz v District Court In Mlada Boleslav

Under sections 11 and 14 of the Extradition Act 2003, a person who has fled the requesting state and remained unlawfully at large cannot rely on the resulting delay as a bar to extradition. Bare and unsupported allegations of legal negligence, judicial bias or lack of knowledge of proceedings do not establish grounds for allowing an extradition appeal, particularly where the allegations are contradicted by reliable information. The court must also consider whether the facts disclose a potential breach of Article 3 rights.

The claimant appealed against District Judge Wickham’s decision of 17 July 2009 to order his extradition to the Czech Republic to serve a 15-month sentence imposed for theft and fraud. His former representatives had initially raised objections concerning delay, extraneous considerations, alleged bias, Article 3 rights and awareness of the criminal proceedings. After further information was supplied by the Czech judicial authority, those objections were abandoned and the hearing below proceeded uncontested.

Before the Divisional Court, the claimant relied principally on an unparticularised allegation of professional negligence. The court considered whether that assertion, and the earlier objections, provided any basis for interfering with the extradition order.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The claimant’s allegation that the order resulted from professional negligence was unparticularised and essentially unsubstantiated.
2. Under sections 11(1)(c) and 11(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, extradition may be barred by the passage of time. Section 14 provides that extradition is barred only where it would be unjust or oppressive by reason of the relevant delay.
3. Applying Goodyear and Gomes v Government of Trinidad and Tobago [2009] UKHL 21, a person who fled the jurisdiction and evaded arrest cannot rely on the resulting delay to resist extradition. The claimant had been present at his trial and had thereafter remained unlawfully at large for approximately eight years. Section 14 therefore afforded him no protection.
4. The allegation that the requesting judge was biased against Roma was a bare assertion, directly contradicted by the President of the requesting court. It could not be given credence. The matters advanced by the claimant did not disclose a potential breach of Article 3 rights.
5. The claimant’s assertion that he had been unaware of the proceedings was expressly contradicted by the requesting judicial authority’s further information, which stated that he had been personally present at trial. There was accordingly no basis for allowing the appeal.

• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Wickham ordered the claimant’s extradition on 17 July 2009.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal against that order.