Keith Abdi v Stuttgart Local Court (Germany)

On an application for permission to appeal in extradition proceedings, the applicant must show an arguable error of approach or outcome. The court may consider the position both at the original hearing and at the permission hearing, but late or untested evidence will carry appropriate weight and will not justify reopening the case where it cannot affect the result. In an Article 8 extradition balancing exercise, serious family consequences must be considered cumulatively, but may be decisively outweighed by the public interest in extradition for a very serious alleged offence. A short administrative deferral may be justified to permit practical arrangements, although a lengthy deferral requires specific justification.

The appellant sought permission to appeal against an extradition order made by District Judge Sternberg on 23 September 2022. The extradition request concerned an alleged lead role in transporting 8 kg of cocaine between the Netherlands and Germany. The central issue was whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with the Article 8 rights of the appellant’s teenage son and 77-year-old mother, for whom the appellant was found to be the primary carer.

The appellant challenged the treatment of expert and social-services evidence, the assessment of alternative care arrangements, and the refusal of a less coercive measure. He also sought to rely on further evidence and requested a lengthy deferral of removal.

1. Permission refused. The court’s task was to determine whether any ground of appeal was reasonably arguable. The district judge’s approach and conclusion were unassailable.
2. The refusal of the proposed interview as a less coercive measure was reasoned and addressed the seriousness of the alleged offence, the evidence and the risk of absconding. There was no arguable basis for impugning that decision.
3. The district judge had admitted and considered Dr Crumpton’s report but was entitled to give it limited or little weight because it was served late, was opposed and had not been tested. The judge nevertheless fully considered its substance, relying principally on the Section 7 report and the evidence.
4. The district judge was entitled to proceed on the basis that the teenage son was likely to be taken into care and would suffer real and serious harm to his mental well-being if extradition occurred. The appellant’s repeated refusal to consent to contact with the mother meant that the court could not rely on her resuming primary care without further enquiry. No such further enquiry was reasonably required on the evidence before the judge.
5. The district judge fully and carefully considered the serious and substantial impact on the grandmother, including the likelihood that she would need to move to a care home. The consequences for the teenage son and grandmother were weighed cumulatively under Article 8 ECHR.
6. Those consequences did not outweigh the weighty public interest in extradition for a very serious alleged offence carrying a likely sentence of many years’ imprisonment, particularly where there had been no significant delay. The fresh evidence was incapable of being decisive and admission of it was refused.
7. A lengthy deferral of removal was unjustified. A one-month period was appropriate to allow practical steps to be taken, with liberty to the respondent to apply on notice. The order provided that permission became final on 14 April 2023 and made no order as to costs, subject to detailed assessment of the appellant’s legally aided costs.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal against the extradition order was refused. The application to adduce fresh evidence was also refused. The refusal became final on 14 April 2023, subject to liberty to the respondent to apply.
• District Judge Sternberg: Extradition was ordered for reasons given in a judgment dated 23 September 2022.