Kubik v District Court In Kromeriz, Czech Republic

In an extradition human-rights case, the district judge is the primary decision-maker. The judge must conduct a balance-sheet exercise, taking into account all relevant circumstances, including private and family life and the interests of any child. Permission to appeal should be refused where there is no reasonably arguable basis for showing that the assessment was unlawful. Strong public-interest considerations in favour of extradition may outweigh family relationships formed during a relatively short period in the United Kingdom. A desire to serve a sentence in the United Kingdom does not create an available alternative to extradition.

The appellant sought permission to appeal against a district judge’s decision ordering extradition to the Czech Republic despite reliance on private and family life. The district judge had heard live evidence and cross-examination and concluded that the appellant was not reliable, that the family circumstances were not settled or established, and that the hardship caused by extradition was neither exceptional nor significant.

Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Eady J. The appellant renewed the application before the Administrative Court, relying on his relationship with his eight-year-old daughter, proposed accommodation and employment, and a new assertion that he feared for his life in the Czech Republic. The central issue was whether there was any reasonably arguable basis for overturning the district judge’s assessment.

1. Application refused. There was no reasonably arguable ground of appeal.
2. The district judge was the primary decision-maker in the extradition human-rights assessment. The judge had lawfully undertaken a balance-sheet exercise, considering all relevant circumstances and deciding whether the public interest in extradition was outweighed by private or family life considerations, including those of a child.
3. The Administrative Court accepted that the appellant had an important relationship with his daughter and considered the further matters raised orally. Those matters did not undermine the district judge’s assessment. It was open to the district judge to find that the family life was not settled or established and that any hardship was no more than the ordinary hardship caused by extradition.
4. The public interest was especially strong because the case involved a conviction warrant, a five-year sentence with almost the whole sentence unserved, 79 methamphetamine-related incidents, and a finding that the appellant had left the Czech Republic as a fugitive. The private and family life arising during approximately two years in the United Kingdom did not outweigh that public interest.
5. The late assertion that the appellant feared for his life had not been raised before the district judge or in the written materials. There was no proper evidential or arguable basis for concluding that extradition would expose him to that risk or that the Czech authorities would fail to provide the human-rights protection required by law.
6. Serving the sentence in the United Kingdom was not an option which the appellant could choose. The application for permission to appeal was therefore refused.

• District judge: After hearing live evidence and cross-examination, the district judge concluded that extradition was compatible with the appellant’s private and family life rights and that the balance favoured extradition.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Eady J refused permission to appeal on the papers on 13 March 2020.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused by Fordham J on 11 June 2020.