Demeter v The District Court In Ceske Budejovice (Czech Republic)

Where separate extradition appeals raise the same proportionality issue, the appellate court may assess the appeals together and consider the present circumstances as a whole. It must nevertheless respect factual findings below unless they are shown to be wrong. A person who knowingly leaves the requesting state to place himself beyond enforcement proceedings may be a fugitive from justice, even if he was not formally required to remain in that state. In assessing proportionality under Article 8, the court must balance the enduring public interest in extradition, the seriousness and cumulative nature of the offending, and the impact on the person and family. Family disruption may be substantial without making extradition disproportionate.

The appellant challenged two extradition orders concerning sentences imposed in the Czech Republic. The first warrant concerned an eight-month sentence for dishonesty offences. The second concerned a twelve-month suspended sentence imposed under the Czech simplified procedure and later activated following further offending.

The appeals raised whether the appellant was a fugitive from justice for the purposes of section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003, whether fresh evidence should be admitted, and whether extradition under either warrant would disproportionately interfere with the appellant’s private and family life under Article 8.

1. The appeal concerning the second warrant was admitted for the purposes of permission, but both appeals were dismissed.

2. The District Judge was entitled to find that the appellant knew that he had received a suspended sentence and that further offending might lead to its activation. He had then left the Czech Republic partly to avoid the possibility of imprisonment. He was therefore a fugitive from justice and could not rely on section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003. The absence of the original Penal Order did not invalidate the finding, since its terms were accurately stated in the European Arrest Warrant and further information.

3. Following Zakrzewski v Regional Court in Warsaw [2015] EWHC 3393 (Admin), separate appeals raising the same proportionality issue could be considered together. The court could assess the current circumstances and balance all relevant matters. It could not simply substitute different factual findings for those made below where the evidence was unchanged, unless those findings were shown to be wrong.

4. The proportionality assessment required consideration of the strong public interest in honouring extradition obligations, particularly where the person sought was a fugitive; the cumulative seriousness of the offending; the relatively short period spent in the United Kingdom; and the significant effect of a twenty-month prison term on the appellant’s partner and children. The family’s return to the Czech Republic would cause serious disruption, but available support, accommodation and medical assistance reduced its weight.

5. The fresh evidence from the Czech attorney was refused. Even if admitted, it would not undermine the finding that the appellant knew of the suspended sentence. Extradition under both warrants was not a disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeals against extradition orders made by Deputy Chief Magistrate Ikram and District Judge Zani were dismissed. The court considered both proportionality challenges together.