ZZ v Ministry of Justice Lithuania

In extradition proceedings, substantial weight must be given to international obligations under the European arrest warrant system, particularly where the person deliberately left the requesting state to avoid imprisonment. The ordinary hardship caused to children by a parent’s imprisonment is insufficient by itself to make extradition disproportionate. Greater weight may arise where the person is the children’s sole carer, especially where removal would cause serious and distinctive harm. The court must balance the public interest in extradition against the effect on the children, having regard to the seriousness of the offending, the sentence, time already served and the practical care arrangements. The assessment is fact-sensitive and each case turns on its own circumstances.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Zani’s order of 3 September 2014 for her extradition to Lithuania under a conviction arrest warrant. She was required to serve the balance of a two-year sentence imposed for four fraud offences.

The claimant was the sole effective carer of three children. Their father had behaved violently towards her and the children, and the local authority had arranged foster care for the children together if she were extradited. The central issue was whether, in those circumstances, extradition would be disproportionate despite the public interest in enforcing the warrant.

1. The appeal was allowed. The claimant was not to be extradited to Lithuania.
2. Great weight had to be given to compliance with international obligations arising from the European arrest warrant system. That weight was increased because the claimant had deliberately left Lithuania knowing that she was likely to have to serve the sentence.
3. Following the approach identified by the Supreme Court in HH, considered with FK v Poland, the ordinary harsh effect of a parent’s imprisonment on children was insufficient by itself to make extradition disproportionate. The position required particular care where the parent was the sole carer.
4. The court had to balance the obligation to execute the warrant against the consequences for the children. Relevant considerations included the claimant’s sole-carer status, the family breakdown and the resulting risk of serious harm to the children, the seriousness and circumstances of the offending, the sentence likely to have been imposed domestically, the sentence remaining to be served and time already spent in custody.
5. The offending was serious but not trivial, and the remaining sentence was substantial. Nevertheless, the offences were comparatively limited, the claimant had already spent two months on remand, and extradition would remove the children’s only effective carer for almost two years. The local authority’s foster-care arrangements avoided separation but did not prevent the real damage caused by removal of their mother.
6. The decision depended entirely on its facts. In all the circumstances, extradition would be disproportionate.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal against the order of District Judge Zani dated 3 September 2014.