Patman & Anor v Specialist Criminal Court In Pezinok, Slovakia

On an appeal against an extradition decision, the question under section 19B of the Extradition Act 2003 is whether the forum-bar question ought to have been decided differently. The appellate court need not identify a judicial-review-style error, but must allow the appeal if, after reviewing the decision, it concludes that the lower court was wrong.

The forum bar is confined to the statutory interests-of-justice factors. Those factors must be applied pragmatically, with regard to an effective prosecution and the mutual operation of the European arrest warrant system. Article 5(2) of the Framework Decision creates no free-standing legal standard requiring a sentence-review condition. A high threshold applies under section 25 where extradition is said to be unjust or oppressive because of suicide risk.

Mohammed Patman and Darya Safi appealed against orders made by District Judge McGarva on 6 February 2020 requiring their extradition to Slovakia. The European arrest warrants alleged that they had jointly prepared the murder of Mr Patman’s daughter, principally through surveillance and attempts to recruit assistance in Slovakia.

Both appellants relied on the forum bar in section 19B of the Extradition Act 2003. Mr Patman also relied on article 5(2) of the Framework Decision. Mr Safi relied on section 25 of the 2003 Act, arguing that his mental health made extradition unjust or oppressive. The appeal also raised the admissibility of new evidence and the proper appellate approach to the District Judge’s evaluative conclusions.

1. Appeals dismissed. The new evidence relied on by the requesting authority was admitted because it was relevant, provided a fuller picture of the investigation, and its admission was in the interests of justice. Mr Patman’s evidence concerning his wife’s health failed the second and third Szombathely City Court v Fenyvesi criteria and was not admitted. Mr Safi’s updating medical evidence was admitted.
2. Under section 27(3) of the Extradition Act 2003, the appellate question was whether the section 19B question ought to have been decided differently. A judicial-review-style error was unnecessary. The evaluative nature of the decision required review in accordance with the approach in In Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings; Threshold Criteria) [2013] 1 WLR 1911: the appeal court must allow the appeal if it concludes that the lower court was wrong.
3. The forum bar is carefully confined by section 19B(3). The place where the intended harm occurred or was intended to occur was a particularly powerful factor. The surveillance and attempted recruitment in Slovakia, together with the intended murder there, justified the District Judge’s conclusion on section 19B(3)(a). The victim’s permanent residence in Slovakia and the practical consequences of requiring her to travel or give evidence remotely supported section 19B(3)(b).
4. Sections 19B(3)(d) and (e) required a pragmatic assessment. The theoretical possibility of transferring evidence or using video links did not outweigh the practical reality that the investigation, documents, intercepted communications and relevant witnesses were principally in Slovakia. The statutory criteria were not to be applied so as to assert an exorbitant English jurisdiction or undermine the effectiveness of the European arrest warrant system.
5. Section 19B(3)(g) covers connections wider than nationality or residence, including family ties, employment, property and duration of residence, but it is not equivalent to the full scope of article 8(1) of the Convention. The appellants’ United Kingdom connections were insufficient to outweigh the other factors.
6. Article 5(2) of the Framework Decision permitted, but did not require, Member States to impose a sentence-review condition. It created no manageable legal standard capable of being read into Part 1 of the 2003 Act. The argument based on that provision therefore failed.
7. Section 25 required the high threshold explained in Turner v Government of the United States of America [2012] EWHC 2426 (Admin). The evidence did not establish that Mr Safi lacked capacity to resist suicide or that he would succeed in committing suicide regardless of protective measures. The usual assumption that Slovakia would take appropriate safeguarding steps remained applicable.

• District Judge McGarva: on 6 February 2020 ordered the extradition of both appellants to Slovakia.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed both appeals and upheld the extradition orders: [2020] EWHC 3512 (Admin).