Sztanko, R (on the application of) v District Court of Malacky Slovakia

Time limits for serving an extradition appeal notice cannot be extended for a foreign national where the governing statute permits extension only for a British citizen. Failure to serve within the statutory period deprives the court of jurisdiction. The court also confirmed that ordinary personal, employment and financial ties are insufficient, without more, to make extradition disproportionate under article 8. Material available below but not raised there cannot ordinarily be introduced on appeal where the governing Act prohibits reliance on it.

The appellant challenged an extradition decision of the District Court of Malacky, Slovakia. He was on bail in England and did not attend the appeal hearing, although the court was satisfied that he knew of it. Service on the Crown Prosecution Service occurred after the statutory deadline. The appellant also relied on article 8, based on his life, work, partner and financial obligations in the United Kingdom, and sought to raise new information concerning the Slovak arrest warrant. The issues were whether the court had jurisdiction and, alternatively, whether any substantive ground could succeed.

1. Jurisdiction. The appeal was served out of time. The Supreme Court decisions in Mucelli and Lukaszewski v District Court in Torun [2012] UKSC 20 established that the statutory service period could not be extended for a foreign national. It could be extended for a British citizen. The court therefore had no jurisdiction.
2. Legal representation. The court considered the Supreme Court’s observation that the position of persons not protected by article 6(1), including access to meaningful and effective legal assistance throughout the extradition process, deserved attention. That concern was a matter for Parliament and was not directly material to the appeal.
3. Article 8. Even if jurisdiction existed, the appeal would fail. A five-year life in the United Kingdom, employment, a partner and financial obligations did not make return disproportionate.
4. New material. The alleged information from a Slovak lawyer was available below but was not raised. The court considered that the Act prohibited reliance on it on appeal. In any event, the allegation that the judge responsible for the arrest warrant knew nothing of it was extraordinary and incredible.
5. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal from the extradition decision of the District Court of Malacky, Slovakia, was dismissed. No citation for the district court decision is stated in the judgment.