Marian Gujda v District Court in Jindrichuv Hradex (Czech Republic)

Permission to appeal in an extradition case requires a ground with a realistic prospect of success. A person’s absence from proceedings activating a suspended sentence will not provide a viable Extradition Act 2003, section 20, ground where the evidence establishes deliberate absence or, at least, a manifest lack of diligence. On an Article 8 challenge, the court must balance the individual and family interests against the public interest in extradition, including the seriousness and length of the sentence, evasion of justice and respect for the requesting state’s decision. Family hardship, employment, settled family life and the interests of a child may be relevant, but they do not make extradition disproportionate absent sufficiently compelling features.

The appellant sought permission to appeal against an extradition order made by District Judge Godfrey on 10 November 2020. The extradition related to a two-year custodial sentence imposed in the Czech Republic after activation of a previously suspended sentence. Eady J refused permission on the papers on 19 March 2021. The renewed application relied on section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003 and Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The central issues were whether the appellant’s absence during activation barred extradition and whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with his and his family’s rights.

1. Permission refused. The court could grant permission only if there was a ground of appeal with a realistic prospect of success. Neither ground met that threshold.

2. As to section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003, the appellant had been personally served with summonses at the beginning and end of the activation process. The District Judge had made an unimpeachable finding that he received and signed the later summons. Those facts established beyond reasonable doubt that any absence from the Czech proceedings was deliberate or involved a manifest lack of diligence. Either conclusion defeated the section 20 ground. The court therefore did not need to determine the separate issue, discussed by Eady J by reference to Case C-571/17 PPU Ardic, whether activation was a conviction where the nature and quantum of the sentence remained unchanged.

3. The District Judge had properly considered the appellant’s private and family life, his employment, his lack of offending in the United Kingdom, the effects on his wife, daughter and grandchildren, and the daughter’s interests as a primary consideration. Against those matters stood the weighty public interest in extradition, the appellant’s fugitive status, the relatively short period since activation and his arrival in the United Kingdom, the need for mutual confidence between states, and the two-year custodial sentence.

4. The resulting hardship to the family was inevitable but was not exceptionally severe. There was no reasonably arguable error of approach or outcome, and no realistic prospect that the competing family considerations could outweigh the public interest in extradition. Permission to appeal was accordingly refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused.
• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Godfrey ordered extradition on 10 November 2020.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Eady J refused permission to appeal on the papers on 19 March 2021.