Balog v Court In Ceske Budejovice (Czech Republic)

In an extradition appeal, the court must assess all the circumstances when deciding whether passage of time makes extradition unjust or oppressive. There is no fixed time limit. Delay attributable to the requested person cannot ordinarily assist him, and the question is whether extradition, rather than trial, would be unjust or oppressive.

Under the forum bar, the court must consider only the statutory specified matters. An appellate court decides whether the district judge’s decision was wrong; it does not generally rehear the evidence or reweigh factors merely because it might have assigned different weight.

Article 8 requires close scrutiny of the particular facts. Serious offending and the public interest in honouring extradition obligations may outweigh substantial interference with family life.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a district judge’s order for his extradition to the Czech Republic. The European Arrest Warrant concerned an accusation of complicity in human trafficking.

Before the district judge, the appellant relied on passage of time, the forum bar and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judge rejected each challenge and ordered extradition. Permission to appeal was granted after renewal.

The appeal concerned whether the passage of time was unjust or oppressive, whether trial in the United Kingdom was required by the forum bar, and whether extradition would be a disproportionate interference with private and family life.

1. Passage of time. The appeal was dismissed on this ground. Section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003 requires an overall assessment of whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive. Culpable delay by the requesting state may be relevant, but there is no fixed cut-off point. The appellant had been interviewed in 2013, the Czech proceedings had progressed to an indictment by January 2017, and there was insufficient evidence to establish culpable delay. His conduct also meant that he could not claim a false sense of security about prosecution.
2. Forum. The appellant’s substantial relevant activity had occurred in the United Kingdom, so the judge had to consider whether extradition was nevertheless in the interests of justice under section 19B. The statutory specified matters had to be considered, and the appellate question was whether the district judge’s decision was wrong. The judge had been entitled to find that substantial harm occurred in both countries, that the victim’s interests favoured a Czech trial, that the Czech proceedings were trial-ready, and that a United Kingdom prosecution would cause delay. Although he had overstated the weight given to the availability of evidence in the United Kingdom, that error did not alter the outcome. The interests of justice continued to favour trial in the Czech Republic.
3. Article 8. The court reassessed proportionality in light of the appellant’s long residence, relationship, children and imminent twins. Those matters weighed heavily against extradition. However, the alleged human-trafficking offence was particularly serious, there had been no culpable delay, and the appellant had known at an early stage that he was under investigation. The public interest in honouring extradition obligations outweighed the interference with the appellant’s and his family’s Article 8 rights.
4. The unchallenged section 21A conclusion was also upheld. Extradition to the Czech Republic was ordered to proceed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal dismissed. The order for extradition made by District Judge Snow on 31 January 2019 was upheld, subject to the court’s revised reasoning on the forum issue.
• District Court: District Judge Snow rejected challenges based on passage of time, forum and Article 8, and ordered extradition.