Elbeyati v Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

For an extradition request under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, the court must assess the conduct described in the request documents against the equivalent domestic offence. Mere narrative background is disregarded, but allegations relevant to that offence are considered. Causing death by dangerous driving requires the high threshold in section 2A of the Road Traffic Act 1988. A failure to pay sufficient attention to an oncoming vehicle, without more, may amount to careless rather than dangerous driving. If the conduct does not meet the domestic equivalent, it is not an extradition offence.

The appellant, a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, was the subject of an extradition request to stand trial for a serious traffic offence arising from a fatal collision in Sarajevo. A district judge sent the case to the Secretary of State, who ordered extradition.

The appellant challenged the district judge’s decision on the grounds that the alleged conduct did not constitute an extradition offence under section 137 of the Extradition Act 2003, and that extradition would breach articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights because of prison conditions. The central issue was whether the conduct described would constitute causing death by dangerous driving in the United Kingdom.

1. Appeal allowed. The conduct alleged did not constitute an extradition offence for the purposes of section 137 of the Extradition Act 2003. The extradition order was quashed, the appellant was discharged, and the bail security obligation was released. There was no order for costs, subject to legal aid taxation.
2. The court applied the conduct test identified in Norris v Government of the United States of America and others [2008] UKHL 16. The relevant conduct was that described in the documents constituting the request. Mere narrative background was ignored, while allegations relevant to the domestic equivalent offence were considered.
3. The domestic equivalent was causing death by dangerous driving under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Section 2A required driving which fell far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver, with danger that would have been obvious to such a driver. The court noted the high threshold emphasised in R v Conteh [2004] RTR 1.
4. The indictment alleged that the appellant turned left at a traffic-light-controlled junction without paying due attention to the speed and distance of an oncoming motorcycle. Although the appellant had failed to give way, the alleged conduct fell short of dangerous driving and was more akin to careless driving.
5. Because the first ground succeeded, the court did not determine the articles 2 and 3 human-rights ground.

District Judge Evans sent the case to the Secretary of State on 29 September 2010, and the Secretary of State ordered extradition on 9 November 2010. The Divisional Court allowed the appeal against the district judge’s decision.