MRT v Government of the Republic of North Macedonia

On an extradition appeal, the appellate court asks whether the district judge ought to have decided a question differently and, if so, would have been required to discharge the requested person. It does not rehear the evidence or re-weigh factors afresh.

For oppression under section 82 of the Extradition Act 2003, the court must balance delay, the seriousness of the alleged offending and the effect of delay on the requested person and family. Mere hardship is insufficient. Comparative sentencing is generally inappropriate, although the likely domestic sentence may matter where children’s interests could affect whether immediate custody would be imposed.

Under Article 8, children’s interests are a primary, but not necessarily paramount, consideration. Fresh evidence must be decisive before it can be admitted on appeal.

MRT appealed against the Secretary of State’s decision of 26 September 2019 ordering her extradition to North Macedonia. The decision followed District Judge Baraitser’s order of 7 August 2019 sending the case to the Secretary of State.

The appeal was limited to whether extradition was unjust or oppressive because of the passage of time under section 82 of the Extradition Act 2003, and whether extradition was incompatible with Article 8 of the ECHR under section 87. MRT relied on fresh psychological evidence concerning her son, including suspected autism spectrum disorder and the likely effect of separation from her.

The central issues were whether the district judge had made an appealable error and whether the fresh evidence would have required a different decision.

1. Appeal dismissed. The fresh evidence was not decisive and was not admitted. Both grounds of appeal failed.
2. Under the statutory appeal jurisdiction, the court had to identify an error showing that the district judge ought to have decided a question differently and that the correct decision would have required discharge. The appeal was not a rehearing or an invitation to re-weigh the evidence. The approach in Love v USA [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin) was applied.
3. For section 82, the relevant considerations were delay, the seriousness of the offence and the impact of the passage of time on MRT and her son. The tests of injustice and oppression are not readily satisfied; oppression requires more than hardship. The District Judge was entitled to find no culpable delay by North Macedonia, given its efforts to locate MRT and prosecute her in her absence when those efforts failed.
4. The District Judge was also entitled to regard the offending as relatively serious. The court rejected close comparison with the sentence an English court might have imposed. There is no requirement of equality of sentencing in extradition proceedings. The wider course of conduct and related allegations could properly be considered where they formed part of the same conduct underlying the conviction. The reasoning in HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25 and Poland v Celinski [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin) supported that approach.
5. The effect on MRT’s son was significant. Nevertheless, his continuing care by his grandmother, his links with Bulgaria and the availability of a familiar home were protective factors which the District Judge was entitled to weigh. The fresh evidence strengthened the Article 8 case but did not fundamentally alter the balance.
6. Under Article 8, the question was whether interference with family life was outweighed by the public interest in extradition. Children’s interests are a primary consideration but are not invariably paramount. This was not a classic sole-carer case. The public interest remained substantial because the offence was sufficiently serious, MRT was convicted and sentenced, and extradition obligations were engaged.
7. Fresh evidence under section 104(4) had to be decisive: it had to be capable of causing the district judge to decide the relevant question differently and require discharge. The psychologist’s report did not meet that threshold and was therefore inadmissible.

• High Court (Administrative Court): MRT’s appeal against the Secretary of State’s extradition order was dismissed. The decision of District Judge Baraitser was upheld in substance.
• District Judge: On 7 August 2019, the case was sent to the Secretary of State for a decision on extradition.
• Secretary of State for the Home Department: On 26 September 2019, an order was made for MRT’s return to North Macedonia.