Kirsanov v Viru County Court, Estonia

A Part 1 European arrest warrant may be supplemented by further information where the warrant identifies the convictions, sentence and composite basis of that sentence, even though factual particulars required by Extradition Act 2003, section 2(6)(b), were initially incomplete. The missing information must nevertheless be provided.

Under section 21, Article 8 requires a proportionality balance between private and family life and the weighty public interest in extradition. There is no requirement that interference be exceptional.

The appellant challenged an order of the Westminster Magistrates’ Court directing his extradition to Estonia under a conviction European arrest warrant. The warrant concerned a 2011 robbery conviction and an aggregate four-year sentence, including the unserved part of a suspended sentence imposed for an earlier robbery.

Permission had been granted on compliance with section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003. The appellant also renewed permission on an Article 8 ground under section 21. The warrant omitted factual particulars of the earlier robbery, but those particulars were later supplied.

1. Section 2 ground dismissed. The warrant identified both convictions, the four-year sentence and its composite basis. Although factual particulars of the earlier offence were required, their subsequent provision cured the deficiency in the circumstances.
2. Article 8 ground dismissed. There is no test of exceptionality. The court must balance private and family life against the weighty public interest in extradition. Serious offending, fugitive status, treaty obligations and the timing of personal relationships outweighed the appellant’s rehabilitation and family circumstances.
3. Practice guidance. Questions sent to a requesting judicial authority must be supplied with the answers when the further information is served. Parties must identify missing information early. The requesting state is responsible for obtaining it; the court should not communicate directly with the requesting authority.

Permission to appeal was granted on the Article 8 ground, but the appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission had been granted on the section 2 ground. Permission was also granted on the Article 8 ground, but the appeal was dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Ikram ordered extradition on 11 November 2016.