Zdenek Michalik v District Court in Teplice (Czech Republic)

In an extradition appeal based on Article 8 ECHR, the court must assess the competing private, family and public interests using a structured balancing exercise. International cooperation and mutual respect may carry substantial weight, particularly where extradition is sought to enforce a significant sentence imposed with the defendant’s knowledge. Private and family ties formed while avoiding that sentence may attract limited weight. Qualifying remand served in the United Kingdom does not, without more, provide a reasonably arguable basis for an Article 8 appeal.

The appellant was wanted for extradition to the Czech Republic to serve an unserved 18-month prison sentence imposed for shoplifting offences against the background of previous convictions. A District Judge ordered extradition on 22 April 2021. Thornton J refused permission to appeal on 9 November 2021.

On renewed application, the appellant relied on Article 8 ECHR, referring to his relationship, work and life in the United Kingdom, his experiences in the Czech Republic, and time spent on qualifying remand. The central issue was whether the extradition decision was arguably incompatible with Article 8.

1. The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused. There was no reasonably arguable ground under Article 8 ECHR, or otherwise.
2. The correct framework was the Article 8 balance-sheet exercise. The extradition judge had properly weighed the considerations supporting extradition against those capable of weighing against it.
3. The public interest in international cooperation and mutual respect carried significant weight. The sentence was 18 months, was imposed in the appellant’s presence and knowledge, and had not been served because he came to the United Kingdom as a fugitive.
4. The appellant’s relationship and family-life ties attracted little weight. They were relatively recent, family life had been limited by detention, and the ties had been established while he was avoiding service of the Czech sentence. His subsequent support from his partner did not materially alter that assessment.
5. The period of qualifying remand, then 12 months leaving six months of the sentence outstanding, could not support an Article 8 appeal for the reasons given in Molik v Poland [2020] EWHC 2836 (Admin), at paragraphs 11 and 19.

• District Judge — extradition ordered on 22 April 2021 after an oral hearing on 8 April 2021.
• High Court — Thornton J refused permission to appeal on 9 November 2021.
• High Court (Administrative Court) — renewed application for permission to appeal refused.