Enoh v The District Court for Prague 6, The Czech Republic

In an extradition appeal based on Article 8 proportionality, the appellate court must decide whether the district judge’s balancing exercise was legally flawed, rather than whether another judge might have struck the balance differently. Relevant considerations include the seriousness of the offending, the sentence remaining, delay, family circumstances, the appellant’s conduct, and the effect of extradition on family life. A district judge may take account of deliberate absence from the requesting state and conduct contributing to delay. The appellate court should interfere only where the balancing exercise or its outcome is legally erroneous.

The appellant appealed against an order made by District Judge Wright on 20 January 2017 requiring her extradition to the Czech Republic under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. The warrant concerned a 2000 night-time robbery for which a 26-month sentence had been imposed, with 268 days remaining.

The appellant relied solely on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003. She relied particularly on the passage of time, her children and changed family circumstances, and alleged errors in the district judge’s assessment of her credibility, conduct and the sentence remaining. The central issue was whether the district judge’s proportionality balancing exercise was flawed.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The question was whether the district judge’s Article 8 balancing exercise, undertaken pursuant to [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin), was wrong in law. It was not whether another judge might have reached a different balance.
2. The district judge was entitled to reject the appellant’s account of her return to the United Kingdom after her release in 2014. The evidence permitted the conclusion that she had deliberately left the Czech Republic and failed to maintain contact with its authorities.
3. The district judge was also entitled to take account of the appellant’s admitted possession of Class A drugs. There was no requirement to treat her as a person of good character.
4. Delay had been considered in the appellant’s favour, together with the fact that the offending occurred when she was relatively young. The delay was nevertheless substantially attributable to her pregnancies and failures to keep in touch with the Czech authorities.
5. The reference to the appellant’s determined efforts to resist imprisonment could properly include her opposition to extradition and her subsequent avoidance of serving the sentence. The absence of a mother-and-baby unit in Czech prisons could not count against extradition.
6. The remaining sentence was less than nine months, but the original 26-month sentence arose from a serious night-time robbery committed with another person. The district judge was entitled to regard the sentence remaining as considerable.
7. The district judge had carried out the required balancing exercise. The appellate court could not regard the conclusion as wrong merely because another judge might have approached the balance differently.

• District Court for Prague 6, Czech Republic: issued the conviction European Arrest Warrant on 16 November 2015.
• District Judge Wright: ordered extradition on 20 January 2017.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal against that order.