Harrison, R (on the application of) v Spanish Judicial Authority

In extradition proceedings, the requesting authority must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the requested person deliberately absented himself from pending proceedings. Arrest, detention, appearance before a court and release on substantial security may justify that conclusion, despite the later return of a passport. A lengthy delay does not, by itself, amount to oppression. The court must assess the seriousness of the allegation and the circumstances of the requested person, including hardship to the person and family, ill-health and the cause of the delay. The threshold for oppression is high, and ordinary hardship associated with prosecution and possible imprisonment will not generally suffice.

The claimant appealed against District Judge Zani’s order for his extradition to Spain under a European Arrest Warrant. He had been arrested in Spain in 2000 in connection with alleged possession of MDMA with intent to supply. He was released after security was paid and returned to the United Kingdom. The appeal challenged the finding that he knew proceedings remained pending and relied on the ten-year delay, his ill-health and his family circumstances as constituting oppression under the Extradition Act 2003.

1. Deliberate absence. The requesting authority had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the claimant deliberately absented himself from the Spanish proceedings, applying the approach in Mitoi v Government of Romania [2006] EWHC (Admin) 1977. Although parts of the District Judge’s reasoning could bear a different interpretation, paragraphs 10 to 13 read together showed that the correct criminal standard had been applied.
2. The evidence supported the conclusion that the claimant knew proceedings were pending. He had been arrested, detained, brought before a court and released only after substantial security had been deposited. Returning his passport did not establish that the proceedings had ended. The first ground therefore failed.
3. Oppression. Delay, family hardship and ill-health had to be assessed in context. The allegation was serious and, in a civilised country, warranted prosecution to conviction if supported by evidence. The hardship relied upon was not comparable with that in Wenting v High Court of Valenciennes [2009] EWCA 3528 or Penta v District Public Prosecutors Office Zwolle-Lelystad Netherlands [2011] EWHC 992. Listing and administrative difficulties in Spain were regrettable but did not amount to oppression. The second ground also failed.
4. The appeal was dismissed. A public funding assessment was directed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal against District Judge Zani’s order for extradition to Spain.