A v CPS On Behalf of Republic of Croatia

Family hardship caused by extradition may exceptionally make extradition disproportionate under Article 8 where the offence is relatively trivial and the family suffering is severe. Such cases are expected to be very rare. The court must balance the likely impact on family members against the seriousness of the alleged offending and the importance of honouring international obligations. Evidence that a child may suffer, or that care proceedings may follow, does not by itself establish disproportionality.

The claimant appealed against a District Judge’s order for his extradition to Croatia in relation to theft and false-passport offences. He relied solely on Article 8, arguing that extradition would disproportionately affect his wife, who had significant mental-health difficulties, and their ten-year-old son, whose care had previously involved social services.

Since the District Judge’s decision, the local authority had indicated that it might commence care proceedings. The central issue was whether the prospective family hardship justified refusing extradition as disproportionate.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court found no good reason to differ from the District Judge’s careful assessment.
2. Family members may suffer seriously when a parent loses his liberty. However, following the approach identified in Norris, extradition may be disproportionate only in exceptional circumstances where the anticipated family suffering is severe and the offence is relatively trivial. Such cases are likely to be very rare.
3. The passport offence was serious. The seriousness of the offending and the importance of honouring international obligations had to be balanced against the likely hardship to the claimant’s family.
4. The evidence did not establish that the claimant’s role in his son’s life was essential or that permitting the appeal would alter the likely outcome. The absence of evidence from the child’s mother was material. The possibility of further care proceedings did not provide a sufficient evidential basis for finding extradition disproportionate.
5. Lord Justice Toulson concluded that the case did not fall within the exceptional category. Mr Justice Griffith Williams agreed. The claimant’s name and those of his partner and child were anonymised, and an assessment of legal aid was ordered.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal against the District Judge’s order for extradition. No citation for the District Judge’s decision was stated in the judgment.