Slavik, R (on the application of) v District Court of Nitra, Slovak Republic

Refusal of an adjournment in extradition proceedings is challengeable only where the decision is unreasonable in the stringent sense, based on wrong principles, or reached without regard to a material consideration. A party cannot ordinarily rely on evidence available below but deliberately not deployed, absent exceptional circumstances. To resist extradition to an EU member state and ECHR signatory on Articles 3 or 6 grounds, clear and cogent evidence is required. General evidence of historic discrimination, or an attack occurring in the United Kingdom, does not establish a real risk of a Convention breach on return. An accusation warrant must be read as a whole to determine its character.

The claimant appealed against Senior District Judge Riddle’s decision of 7 September 2010 ordering his extradition to Slovakia on an accusation warrant concerning an alleged property fraud. Before the District Judge, the claimant had sought repeated adjournments to obtain evidence concerning risks to him as a Roma and from a criminal gang, including alleged deficiencies in Slovak police and prison protection. The final adjournment was refused after several months and multiple listings.

On appeal, the claimant sought a further adjournment and relied on Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, together with a late expert report. The central issues were whether the adjournment decision was lawful, whether the new evidence could be admitted, whether the evidence established a Convention bar to extradition, and whether the warrant was valid.

1. Adjournment. The application for a further adjournment was refused. The claimant had had ample time to prepare his case, had failed to obtain useful expert evidence, and had deliberately chosen not to call available factual evidence before the District Judge.
2. A refusal of an adjournment may be challenged only if it is unreasonable in the stringent sense that no properly directed judge could have reached it, or if it was reached on wrong principles or without taking account of a material consideration. Those conditions were absent. The proper challenge would have been by judicial review, requiring permission and evidence explaining the circumstances of the refusal.
3. Late evidence and Convention grounds. Evidence available but not deployed below could not ordinarily be relied on in the appeal absent exceptional circumstances. Even admitting the draft report, it lacked the factual foundation and cogency required to establish that extradition would breach Articles 3 or 6. The approach in R (on the application of Rot) v Poland [2010] EWHC 1820 (Admin) might set too high a test, whereas the approach in Targosinski v the Judicial Authority of Poland [2011] required clear and cogent evidence.
4. Historic evidence of discrimination against Roma, largely concerning the twentieth century and the 1990s, did not demonstrate continuing conditions giving rise to a Convention breach. Nor did the attack in the United Kingdom establish that Slovak authorities would be unable to provide proper protection. Absolute protection was not required, but the evidence fell far below the necessary level.
5. Warrant. The warrant was valid. It had to be read as a whole. Its completed parts and the procedural stage showed that it was an accusation warrant, not a conviction warrant, applying Asztalos v Szeksard City Court [2007] EWHC 237 (Admin).
6. The appeal was dismissed.

The judgment describes an appeal from the decision of Senior District Judge Riddle dated 7 September 2010 ordering extradition. The High Court dismissed the appeal and refused a further adjournment.