Cerci v Slovakian Judicial Authority

When deciding whether extradition remains appropriate, the court must take account of time already spent in custody during the extradition process. A substantial change in circumstances after the first-instance decision may justify appellate intervention, even where that decision was meticulous and legally correct when made. Where the requested person has substantially served the sentence, extradition may become disproportionate. The court may grant permission, allow the appeal and discharge the person without relying on consent from the requesting judicial authority.

The applicant challenged an extradition order made by District Judge Marie Mallon on 17 June 2019. Permission to appeal was refused on paper by Sir Wyn Williams on 10 September 2019.

The district judge had treated the applicant as a fugitive after finding that he had deliberately absented himself from his trial in Slovakia. After his arrest on 17 February 2019, however, he remained in custody for almost the full one-year sentence imposed for the 2008 driving offence. The central issue was whether that changed circumstance made extradition disproportionate.

1. The renewed application for permission to appeal was granted. The court was entitled to consider the substantial period already spent in custody during the extradition process.
2. In determining whether extradition is appropriate, the court must take account of the extent to which the requested person has in fact already served the sentence through custody during the extradition proceedings. This was a material consideration in the present appeal.
3. The applicant had been in custody for almost the full one-year sentence, with only about three weeks remaining. The sentence related to an offence committed in January 2008. The circumstances had therefore fundamentally changed since the district judge’s decision.
4. The appellate decision did not criticise the district judge’s careful reasoning or her treatment of the applicant as a fugitive. Nevertheless, in the circumstances existing at the date of the appeal, it would be completely disproportionate to extradite the applicant.
5. The court exercised its own discretion and judgment. It did not rely on any consent from the Slovakian Judicial Authority, and declined to adjourn the matter merely to await instructions from that authority.
6. The appeal was allowed. The extradition order made on 17 June 2019 was quashed, and the applicant was ordered to be discharged and released from prison forthwith.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On 23 January 2020, permission to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed, and the extradition order was quashed.
• District Judge: On 17 June 2019, District Judge Marie Mallon made the extradition order after conducting the Celinski balance.
• Permission stage: Sir Wyn Williams refused permission to appeal on paper on 10 September 2019.