Nayanmoni Deb v Greek Judicial Authority

In an extradition appeal involving dependent children, the court must conduct a fresh article 8 proportionality assessment where material circumstances have changed. The children’s best interests are a primary consideration, but extradition may still be ordered where the public interest in giving effect to international obligations outweighs the likely harm to the children. The court must assess the evidence as it actually stands, including witness credibility and the realistic availability of alternative care. It must not apply an exceptionality test or decide the case by mechanical comparison with earlier cases. Fresh evidence may be admitted where it could not previously have been obtained or was directed by the court, but untested evidence from an unreliable witness may receive limited weight. On the facts, the balance remained narrowly in favour of extradition.

The appellant appealed against an order made by District Judge Grace Leong on 7 October 2022 requiring his extradition to Greece to face a serious fraud allegation. The appeal principally concerned the effect of extradition on his two young British children. The children’s mother had left the United Kingdom for Bangladesh after the first-instance decision, leaving the appellant as their principal carer. Further evidence concerned the mother’s alleged mental-health difficulties, the children’s care arrangements and the possible consequences of the appellant’s extradition.

The central issues were whether the fresh evidence should be admitted, whether the district judge’s findings and article 8 assessment were flawed, whether delay engaged section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003, and whether the balance should now be struck differently.

1. Appeal dismissed. The order for extradition to Greece was upheld.
2. Fresh evidence was considered under Szombathely City Court v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin). Evidence of events after the first-instance judgment, and evidence obtained at the court’s direction, was admitted. The Imam’s letter was excluded because it could have been adduced below and was not impartial, objective expert evidence.
3. The appellate court should give appropriate weight to the district judge’s credibility findings. Further untested evidence from the appellant, already found unreliable, was treated with scepticism. The absence of objective medical evidence concerning the children’s mother materially weakened the case that she was unable to care for them.
4. The court rejected the suggested errors in the district judge’s approach. The children’s best interests were a primary consideration, but there was no requirement that extradition be avoided only in exceptional cases. The court applied the article 8 balancing approach described in Celinski v Poland [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin), paying acute attention to the likely harm to the children while also weighing the seriousness of the alleged offending and the United Kingdom’s international obligations, as explained in HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25.
5. The court rejected a mechanical comparison with other child-care cases. Each case depended on its own facts, and the cited authorities were useful only as illustrations of principles in operation. The court also rejected the invitation to investigate the cause of the delay in certification of the accusation warrant. Applying Kakis v Cyprus [1978] 1 WLR 779 and Gomes v Trinidad and Tobago [2009] 1 WLR 1038, the relevant focus was the effect of delay, and the appellant’s decision not to respond to the Greek summons meant that there was no false sense of security.
6. There was a real but comparatively low risk of long-term care followed by adoption. The likely future involvement of the children’s mother or extended family reduced the risk of irreversible and severe harm. The balance therefore remained narrowly but clearly in favour of extradition.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Grace Leong ordered extradition on 7 October 2022. Permission to appeal was granted on 5 May 2023. Mr Justice Kerr dismissed the appeal on 16 May 2024.