Vlas v Westminster Magistrates Court

Article 8 family-life considerations will rarely justify refusing extradition where the comparable domestic offence would ordinarily attract an immediate custodial sentence. The court must allow proportionately for the interests of dependent children, but must also respect international comity. The relevant question is whether, on broadly similar facts, a domestic sentencing court would be likely to impose and activate an immediate custodial sentence. If so, disruption to family life will ordinarily provide no sufficient ground under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003 to prevent extradition.

The claimant appealed against an order of the Westminster Magistrates’ Court requiring his extradition to Romania. He had been convicted by the Cluj-Napoca District Court of burglary and had 18 months of a sentence remaining following an alleged breach of release conditions. He relied principally on his family life with his wife and young daughter, and wished to serve the sentence in the United Kingdom. The appeal concerned whether those Article 8 considerations provided a reason under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003 to bar extradition.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court held that there was no proper basis for an Article 8 claim sufficient to prevent extradition under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. The court applied the principles stated by the Supreme Court in HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UK SC25. Where dependent children are involved, proper and proportionate allowance must be made for their interests. Nevertheless, extradition should be avoided only in very rare cases where, on broadly similar facts, a domestic sentencing court would still be likely to impose an immediate custodial sentence.
3. The relevant practical question was whether a similar offence committed in the United Kingdom would attract a similar sentence and whether that sentence would be activated. A night-time burglary would ordinarily attract immediate custody in the United Kingdom, notwithstanding the disruption that imprisonment would cause to the offender’s family life.
4. Those considerations meant that there was no good argument against extradition. The claimant was therefore to be extradited to Romania to serve the outstanding 18 months, rather than the original sentence of five years and three months.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the Westminster Magistrates’ Court extradition order was dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Arbuthnot ordered extradition to Romania following an uncontested hearing.