Campbell v Deputy Public Prosecutors Office in Bordeaux France

In extradition proceedings, interference with private and family life under Article 8 must be balanced against the substantial public interest in returning convicted persons to serve their sentences and in honouring international obligations. Disruption to a settled life and ordinary hardship will generally be insufficient to prevent extradition. The seriousness of the offending and the sentence remaining to be served are material considerations. The question is whether the individual circumstances outweigh the public interest in extradition.

The appellant appealed against a District Judge’s order for his extradition to France to serve the remainder of a sentence imposed following convictions involving money laundering, drug trafficking and related offences. He relied on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and his family, employment, accommodation and community ties in the United Kingdom. The District Judge accepted that extradition would cause disruption and hardship but concluded that there was no bar to extradition and that it was compatible with Article 8. The central issue was whether the interference with the appellant’s private and family life outweighed the public interest in extradition.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The District Judge had correctly approached the Article 8 issue.
2. The basic principles governing Article 8 in extradition cases were identified in Norris v Government of the United States of America (No 2) [2010] UKSC 9 and HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25.
3. There was a constant and weighty public interest in returning a convicted person to serve the sentence imposed, honouring treaty obligations and ensuring that the United Kingdom did not become a safe haven for suspects or convicted persons who had fled.
4. The appellant’s settled life, employment, accommodation, financial stability, community ties and extended family life were relevant. However, there was no evidence that family members depended on him or that he had substantial financial commitments. The offences were very serious and a significant period of imprisonment remained to be served.
5. The possibility of release on libération conditionnelle was uncertain. The disruption and hardship arising from extradition did not outweigh the public interest. Extradition was therefore compatible with Article 8.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Zani ordered the appellant’s extradition to France on 6 January 2015.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against that order was dismissed.