Sana v The District Court of Kosice, Slovakia

In an extradition appeal raising Article 8 rights, the court will uphold the district judge’s proportionality assessment where the judge made findings open on the evidence, applied the relevant statutory framework and reached a conclusion that cannot properly be criticised. The seriousness of the alleged offence is a material consideration. Family dependence must be assessed realistically, including whether relatives had managed without the appellant. An unexplained delay in prosecuting an alleged offence is not necessarily decisive. The appeal was dismissed where the interference with family life caused by extradition was proportionate.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Coleman’s order at Westminster Magistrates’ Court for his extradition to Slovakia under a European Arrest Warrant. He was sought for prosecution for an alleged robbery committed in 2010.

The sole issue was whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with the appellant’s Article 8 rights and those of his family. The appellant relied principally on his mother’s asserted dependence on him because of chronic scoliosis. The District Judge rejected the extent of that dependence and concluded that extradition was proportionate. The appellant’s representatives withdrew, and he did not attend the appeal hearing.

1. The court considered the appeal in the appellant’s absence because he had been personally warned to attend and had chosen not to do so.

2. The challenge concerned the application of section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003, Part 17A of the Criminal Practice Direction and the Article 8 balancing exercise. The alleged offence was serious, and that seriousness was relevant to proportionality.

3. The District Judge was entitled to find that the appellant had exaggerated his mother’s physical condition. It was open to her to take into account that the appellant’s mother and sister had managed without him for approximately six months after arriving in the United Kingdom.

4. The unexplained delay between the alleged offence and the issue of the domestic warrant was acknowledged, but it was not of sufficient length to determine the proportionality issue. The absence of a specific reference to the appellant’s good character did not invalidate the decision because the matter had been before the District Judge and she had not treated him as a person of bad character.

5. The District Judge’s approach and conclusion could not be criticised. The appeal was dismissed because the single ground of appeal had no merit. The court indicated that, given the appellant’s absence, he should have an opportunity to make representations about communication of the decision.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Coleman ordered the appellant’s extradition to Slovakia on 1 December 2014.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed.