Tuakli v Judge for Preliminary Investigations, Court of Trieste, Italy

Permission to appeal an extradition order should be refused where neither proposed ground is reasonably arguable. Under section 21A, proportionality concerning the likely penalty requires consideration of the seriousness of the alleged conduct, the likely penalty on conviction and the possibility of less coercive measures. The assessment is not displaced by the possibility of a suspended sentence or by youth and the absence of previous drug convictions where the offending remains serious. An Article 8 challenge requires an overall evaluative balance. On appeal, the court may stand back and ask whether the outcome was wrong, but it should not interfere merely because different weight could be assigned to individual factors. Hardship and passage of time must be assessed in context; neither necessarily makes extradition disproportionate.

The appellant, aged 21, was wanted for extradition to Italy under an accusation European Arrest Warrant concerning alleged drug-related offending and burglary in February 2017. A District Judge ordered extradition on 6 February 2020. Permission to appeal was refused on paper, and the appellant renewed his application before the Administrative Court.

Two proposed grounds were advanced. The first concerned statutory proportionality, particularly the likely penalty. The second alleged that extradition would be incompatible with the appellant’s Article 8 rights, relying on his age, British citizenship, United Kingdom ties, hardship, passage of time and likely sentence.

1. Ground One. The statutory proportionality assessment required consideration of the seriousness of the alleged conduct, the likely penalty on conviction and the possibility of less coercive measures. The challenge concerning less coercive measures was abandoned. Although the conduct was most appropriately placed in the significant-role category, with a range extending up to three years’ custody, the possibility of a suspended sentence did not make extradition disproportionate. The appellant’s age and lack of previous drug convictions were relevant but did not make the proposed appeal reasonably arguable, particularly given the quantity and circumstances of the alleged offending.
2. Ground Two. The District Judge had conducted the requisite Article 8 balance-sheet exercise and considered, or was entitled to consider, the relevant factors. Following the approach in Love v USA [2018] EWHC 712 (Admin), an appellate court may stand back and conclude that the overall evaluation was wrong where a crucial factor was given materially different weight. That did not provide a basis for interference here. The District Judge’s evaluation was sustainable.
3. Hardship caused by extradition, including loss of employment, was insufficient by itself to prevent extradition. Passage of time was a weak factor on these facts. It required consideration of the appellant’s age, circumstances and changes over time, but had no wider independent effect. The strong public interest in fulfilling international extradition obligations outweighed the appellant’s Article 8 interests.
4. Neither proposed ground disclosed a reasonably arguable appeal or any realistic prospect of success. Permission to appeal was refused.

1. District Judge. Extradition was ordered on 6 February 2020 after an oral hearing on 17 January 2020.
2. High Court (Administrative Court). Permission to appeal was refused on paper on 11 June 2020. The renewed application was refused on 8 October 2020.