Roope v District Court for Prague 1, Czech Republic

Extradition will constitute an abuse of process where the requesting authority has acted in a manner that makes extradition offensive to the court’s sense of justice. The usual basis is unfair prejudice in resisting extradition or in the requesting state, often resulting from bad faith or deliberate manipulation of the process.

Incompetence, without bad faith, will not necessarily establish abuse where the resulting injustice has been remedied and the person will receive a proper retrial. The court must also assess whether any alleged disadvantage on return, such as reduced prospects of bail, is real and material. Mutual respect between states and confidence in the requesting state’s judicial institutions remain important considerations.

Peter Roope appealed against an order made by District Judge Zani at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 30 April 2014, directing his extradition to the Czech Republic under a European Arrest Warrant.

Mr Roope had previously been tried, convicted and sentenced in absentia in the Czech Republic after being wrongly treated as a fugitive from justice. The High Court in Prague later quashed that conviction and directed further investigation into whether the conditions for treating him as a fugitive had ever existed.

The appeal alleged that the Czech authorities had abused the extradition process by failing to make proper enquiries about his whereabouts and that his return would prejudice his prospects of bail. The central issue was whether those matters made extradition unjust.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the core test for abuse of the extradition process is whether the requesting authority has behaved so that extradition in the particular circumstances would offend the court’s sense of justice. This commonly involves unfair prejudice to the person’s resistance to extradition or to his position after return, and will often involve bad faith or deliberate manipulation of the process.
2. The Czech authorities had acted incorrectly in treating Mr Roope as a fugitive from justice without making further enquiries about his whereabouts. That error led to his trial and conviction in absentia. However, the evidence suggested incompetence rather than bad faith. The injustice had been remedied when the High Court in Prague quashed the conviction, and any retrial was expected to take place conventionally unless Mr Roope later became a fugitive.
3. The court was not prepared to infer that the Czech authorities had ignored the directions of the High Court in Prague to investigate Mr Roope’s residence during his licence period. Evidence supplied by his Czech lawyers supported the inference that the relevant authorities had received information confirming his compliance with the residence condition.
4. The asserted disadvantage concerning bail did not establish abuse. Extradition rests on mutual respect between states and the assumption that states sharing common values and recognising common rights can trust each other’s judicial institutions, as stated by Lord Bingham in Dabas v High Court of Justice in Madrid, Spain [2007] 2 AC 31. The Czech court could take account of the quashing of the conviction and the fact that Mr Roope had not been a fugitive.
5. The warrant’s reference to Mr Roope as a fugitive did not invalidate it under the Extradition Act 2003. If the Czech courts revoked the warrant before his return, the basis of extradition would disappear. No such revocation had occurred. There was to be no order as to costs, subject to detailed assessment of publicly funded costs.

• High Court in Prague: quashed Mr Roope’s conviction in absentia and directed further investigation into whether the conditions for treating him as a fugitive from justice had been satisfied.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal against the extradition order made by District Judge Zani at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 30 April 2014.