KENAN SALIHOVIC v DISTRICT COURT IN LJUBLJANA (SLOVINA)

In an extradition case, the court may dismiss a renewed application for permission to appeal with effect from a specified future date where an imminent foreign judicial process may determine that the extradition warrant will cease to be enforceable. The court must weigh the interests of justice, the overriding objective and the due process already involved in the extradition proceedings. Any accommodation must be tightly defined and supported by sufficiently reliable material. The court need not grant an adjournment or permission to appeal merely because the requesting state may shortly resolve the underlying proceedings. An open-ended deferral is inappropriate. If the warrant is verifiably resolved before the specified date, the requesting authority may confirm that the appellant is to be discharged; otherwise extradition may proceed promptly.

The appellant faced extradition to Slovenia following an extradition order made by a district judge after an oral hearing. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Dove J. On a renewed application, the appellant relied on emails from a Slovenian attorney stating that a Slovenian hearing had been fixed for 10 March 2022 and might result in the discharge of the domestic warrant and the Extradition Arrest Warrant.

The appellant sought an adjournment, permission to appeal on an Article 8 basis, or dismissal of the application taking effect after the imminent hearing. The central issue was whether justice required the court to defer the effect of dismissal to allow that process to occur.

1. Permission and adjournment. The court refused both an adjournment and permission to appeal. The evidence concerning the proposed Slovenian hearing was late, unsupported by documentation and affected by unexplained discrepancies about earlier hearing dates. The possibility of a favourable outcome did not justify a further significant or open-ended deferral.
2. Article 8. Apart from the imminent-hearing issue, no other matter could sustain a viable Article 8 appeal. The court therefore did not grant permission on proportionality grounds.
3. Future-effective dismissal. In the interests of justice, having regard to the overriding objective and the delays inherent in the extradition process, the court adopted the exceptional course proposed by the appellant. Although dismissing the application for permission to appeal, it ordered that the dismissal take effect on Tuesday 15 March 2022.
4. Practical consequence. The appellant was not to be extradited before 15 March 2022. If, on 10 March, the Slovenian attorney could verify that the underlying warrant had been resolved and the Extradition Arrest Warrant was no longer relied upon, the matter could be taken up with the CPS and confirmed by the requesting authority. If not, removal could take place promptly after 15 March.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Dove J on 20 October 2021. On renewal, the application was dismissed with effect from 15 March 2022, with extradition prohibited before that date.
• Magistrates’ court: An order for extradition was made by District Judge Tempia on 4 March 2021 after an oral hearing on 19 February 2021.