Angelov v Regional Prosecutors Office Of Sofia (Bulgaria)

Where extradition depends materially on assurances concerning detention conditions, the decision should prominently record that reliance. A district judge need not make a counterfactual finding that extradition would not have been ordered without the assurances if that question was not argued or determined. On Article 8, the proportionality assessment must reflect the reality of the case. A less serious offence should not be isolated where extradition will in any event occur to enforce a separate, more serious sentence.

The applicant sought permission to appeal against an extradition order made by a district judge. The renewed application followed refusal on paper.

Two grounds were advanced. The first concerned Bulgarian prison conditions and the assurances given by the Bulgarian Ministry of Justice. The second concerned Article 8 and the applicant’s private and family life, in circumstances where extradition was sought on two conviction warrants involving sentences of six months and 18 months’ imprisonment.

1. Article 3 and assurances. The Divisional Court’s guidance in Georgiev [2018] EWHC 359 (Admin), particularly its postscript, required a prominent statement that reliance had been placed on assurances concerning detention conditions. The district judge’s inability to say that extradition would not have been ordered without those assurances was an overintellectualised response to the guidance.
2. The court would not itself state that extradition would not have been ordered but for the assurances, because the district judge had not made that counterfactual finding. It was sufficient, for the purpose of refusing permission, to record prominently in the formal order that the court was relying on the assurances. The Article 3 ground was thereby disposed of.
3. Article 8. The balancing exercise had to address the actual case rather than the earlier offence in isolation. The applicant accepted that extradition would in any event take place in relation to the later and more serious assault, for which an 18-month sentence had been imposed. His established private and family life would therefore in any event be interrupted for a significant period. It was unrealistic to contend that extradition might not have been ordered if the earlier offence stood alone.
4. The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): renewed application for permission to appeal refused after the district judge ordered extradition and Sir Stephen Silber refused permission on paper on 25 September 2018.