Stafford v District Public Prosecutor's Office, Dordrecht

In an extradition appeal based on Article 8, the welfare of dependent children and the impact on family members must be balanced against the imperative of fulfilling international extradition obligations. Extradition should be avoided only in very rare cases where, allowing proportionately for the interests of dependent children, a domestic sentencing court would nevertheless be likely to impose an immediate custodial sentence on broadly similar facts. Genuine distress is relevant, but serious allegations, the likely custodial outcome and the quality of supporting evidence remain important. Independent medical evidence may be expected where severe psychiatric consequences are asserted. Mitigation relevant to sentence can generally be placed before the requesting state’s court.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Evans’s decision of 14 June 2011 ordering his extradition to the Netherlands to face trial for a serious assault on his former girlfriend.

He relied on Article 8, principally because he cared for his father, who suffered from serious depression, and because of the effect of extradition on his partner’s children, with whom he was bonding. The central issue was whether those family consequences made extradition disproportionate in the light of the seriousness of the alleged offence and the likely domestic sentencing outcome.

1. Appeal dismissed. The family impact was genuine, but extradition remained proportionate.
2. The governing approach was that international comity and the fulfilment of extradition obligations remain imperative. Where the same broadly similar facts would be likely to attract an immediate custodial sentence domestically, extradition should be avoided on Article 8 grounds only in very rare cases, after proportionate allowance for dependent children’s interests.
3. The alleged assault was sufficiently serious that imprisonment would be likely if it had been committed in the United Kingdom. The court considered that a custodial outcome in the Netherlands was also likely.
4. The father’s evidence was accepted as genuine, as was the partner’s concern for the children. However, no independent medical evidence supported the asserted devastating psychiatric effect on the father. Such independent support would ordinarily be expected.
5. Matters relevant to sentence could be put before the Dutch court. The possibility that any sentence might be served in the United Kingdom was noted, but could not be assumed.
6. Applying the approach in HH, extradition was proportionate and the appeal was dismissed.

• District Judge: On 14 June 2011, District Judge Evans ordered or indicated the appellant’s extradition to the Netherlands for trial.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 dismissed on 4 October 2012.