Jolanta Ukshini v District Court in Munich (Germany)

In a renewed extradition appeal, permission should be refused where the proposed Article 8 ground is not reasonably arguable and there is no realistic prospect that extradition would breach the appellant’s private or family life.

Possible repayment of loss, mitigating circumstances, domestic violence, poverty, time spent in the United Kingdom and the effect on a relationship may be matters for the requesting state to consider in the criminal process. They do not, without more, provide a basis for resisting extradition or adjourning the appeal, particularly where the allegations involve multiple offences and substantial public interest considerations favour extradition.

The appellant was wanted for extradition to Germany under an accusation European Arrest Warrant concerning 28 alleged fraud or swindling offences between 2016 and 2019. A District Judge ordered extradition on 28 November 2020 after considering statutory proportionality and Article 8. The perfected appeal grounds advanced only Article 8, with new evidence.

Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Swift J. The appellant renewed her application in person after her lawyers came off the record. She sought an adjournment to raise money to repay the alleged loss and to ask German lawyers to seek withdrawal of the warrant. The central questions were whether the Article 8 ground was reasonably arguable and whether an adjournment should be granted.

1. Permission and adjournment. The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused. An adjournment was also refused. It was too late to suggest that steps should now be taken to persuade the German authorities to withdraw the European Arrest Warrant, since there had been a substantial period in which those steps could have been pursued.
2. Article 8. The proposed ground, including the new evidence, was not reasonably arguable. There was no realistic prospect that a substantive appeal would establish that extradition breached the appellant’s or her partner’s private or family life. There was no arguable error of approach or outcome by the District Judge.
3. Relevant circumstances. Repayment of the alleged loss, the background to the alleged offending, poverty, domestic violence and the appellant’s personal circumstances were matters for the German authorities to consider within the criminal process. They did not constitute reasons for resisting extradition or for an adjournment.
4. Public interest. The allegations involved 28 separate offences and a total loss exceeding €8,000. Strong public interest considerations favoured extradition. Those considerations decisively outweighed the factors relied upon against extradition, notwithstanding that the appellant had left Germany before learning of the allegations and had lived in the United Kingdom since February 2019.
5. The court reached the same conclusion as Swift J, even allowing for the new evidence and the matters advanced at the hearing. Permission to appeal was refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): DJ Clews ordered extradition on 28 November 2020.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Swift J refused permission to appeal on the papers on 26 March 2021.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the renewed application for permission to appeal was refused, and an adjournment was refused.