Rahim Abdi Omar v Greek Judicial Authority

On a renewed application for permission to appeal in extradition proceedings, permission should be refused where the proposed grounds disclose no reasonable prospect of success. A finding that a person knowingly left a country without complying with a known obligation to notify a change of address may support a finding of fugitivity. In assessing extradition against Article 8 ECHR, the court must give anxious consideration to the private and family life rights of affected children and keep their welfare at the forefront of the assessment. Hardship to children does not automatically outweigh the public interest in extradition. The court may consider realistic family and local-authority support arrangements, including the prospect that relatives will assist, provided that this does not contradict the welfare evidence.

The appellant, aged 49 and originally from Somalia, was wanted for extradition to Greece to serve a six-and-a-half-year sentence imposed after conviction in her absence for facilitating unlawful entry into the United Kingdom. District Judge Zani ordered extradition on 11 August 2022 following oral hearings and consideration of a social worker’s report under section 7 of the Children Act 1989. Bourne J refused permission to appeal on the papers on 11 January 2023.

On renewal, the appellant argued that the extradition judge had wrongly found her to be a fugitive and had failed properly to assess the impact of extradition on her three youngest children under Article 8 ECHR. The central issues were whether those grounds were reasonably arguable and whether the judge’s factual and welfare assessment contained an arguable error.

1. Permission refused. The renewed appeal was not reasonably arguable. The court agreed with Bourne J’s refusal of permission.
2. The extradition judge had not overlooked the burden or criminal standard of proof when finding the appellant to be a fugitive. The finding showed that the judge was persuaded by the respondent’s evidence and submissions, rejected the appellant’s account, and had regard to the required standard. It was open to the judge to reject the appellant’s evidence and to note the absence of corroboration.
3. Knowingly leaving Greece and returning to the United Kingdom without performing a known obligation to notify a change of address would, as a matter of law, render the appellant a fugitive.
4. The judge had conducted a full and anxious assessment of the children’s third-party rights under Article 8 ECHR. The adjournment to obtain a section 7 report, the detailed treatment of that report, and the balance-sheet reasoning demonstrated that the children’s welfare had been placed at the forefront of the assessment.
5. It was open to the judge to conclude that the two youngest children could remain in the family home in the care of their elder sister, supported by Children’s Services and potentially by extended family. The judge could take account of the family’s previous assistance in raising security, the size and proximity of the wider family, and the possibility that relatives would rally round. Those considerations did not conflict with the section 7 report.
6. The substantial public interest in extradition, the length of the custodial sentence, the finding of fugitivity, the rejection of any false sense of security, and the appellant’s United Kingdom fraud conviction supported the conclusion that the Article 8 balance did not prevent extradition. Hardship to the appellant and the children was insufficient by itself.

• District Judge Zani: ordered the appellant’s extradition on 11 August 2022.
• High Court, Bourne J: refused permission to appeal on the papers on 11 January 2023.
• High Court (Administrative Court), Fordham J: refused permission on renewal; the proposed appeal was not reasonably arguable.