GIORGIAN CRISTIAN MARTIN v GERMAN JUDICIAL AUTHORITY

In a renewed extradition appeal, the court held that statutory proportionality under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003 is assessed by reference to the matters specified by the statute, which are exhaustive. A judge need not hypothesise a domestic sentence where the circumstances do not require that exercise. Article 8 proportionality requires a balance-sheet assessment of private and family life against the public interest in extradition. Recent, planned and group offending, relevant previous convictions and the absence of less coercive measures may make extradition proportionate. A succinct decision in a straightforward case is not thereby erroneous. Permission to appeal requires an arguable ground with a realistic prospect of success.

The appellant sought renewed permission to appeal against a District Judge’s order for his extradition to Germany on an accusation European Arrest Warrant. The warrant concerned alleged attempted aggravated gang theft involving catalytic converters. The District Judge ordered extradition on 10 May 2021. Jay J refused permission on the papers on 14 October 2021.

The renewed application challenged the District Judge’s conclusions on statutory proportionality under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003 and compatibility with Article 8 ECHR. The appellant also sought an extension of time because the renewal grounds had not properly addressed Jay J’s reasons.

1. Extension of time. The appellant’s failure to address the paper judge’s reasoning contravened rule 50.22(3) of the Criminal Procedure Rules. Nevertheless, the defect had been rectified, caused no identified prejudice, and refusing relief risked unfair disadvantage. The extension was granted.
2. Section 21A proportionality. The matters identified by section 21A as potentially relevant to the seriousness of the alleged offending are exhaustive. The District Judge had considered the relevant matters and was not required, on these facts, to hypothesise the sentence that might have been imposed domestically. The alleged offending involved planned and group criminality, carried a maximum sentence of 10 years, followed recent German theft convictions, and no less coercive measure had been identified. The conclusion that extradition was proportionate was unimpeachable.
3. Article 8. The District Judge had carried out the required balance-sheet exercise. The appellant’s employment, relationship and asserted support for family in Romania had to be weighed against the recent offending, the absence of delay, his limited private and family life in the United Kingdom, and the weighty public interest in extradition. The impact did not approach the exceptional severity required to make extradition incompatible with Article 8.
4. Disposition. The grounds disclosed no arguable error of approach or realistic prospect of success. The court agreed that the case was straightforward and refused permission to appeal.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal was refused on renewal. The extension of time for the renewed grounds was granted.
• District Judge Ezzat: Extradition to Germany was ordered on 10 May 2021.
• Jay J: Permission to appeal was refused on the papers on 14 October 2021.