Robert Kozar v District Court in Liberec, Czech Republic

Statutory proportionality under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003 is a free-standing bar to extradition. The assessment is confined to the seriousness of the alleged conduct, the likely penalty and the availability of less coercive measures. The Criminal Practice Directions identify a floor, not a ceiling, for conduct that may be regarded as non-serious or trivial. A judge may consider domestic sentencing practice when assessing likely penalty, particularly where the requesting state provides little information. Time already spent on remand may carry significant weight where it exceeds any sentence likely to be imposed. Applying those principles, extradition for very low-value shoplifting and related payment-card conduct was disproportionate.

The appellant appealed, with permission, against District Judge Law’s order of 30 January 2024 requiring his extradition to the Czech Republic under section 21A(5) of the Extradition Act 2003. He was wanted to stand trial for stealing two bottles of wine worth about £2.69 and attempting to use a bank card found in the street.

Before the district judge, statutory proportionality had been conceded and the challenge proceeded principally under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On appeal, the appellant argued that both statutory proportionality and Article 8 barred extradition. The central issue was whether, on the fresh assessment required by the appeal circumstances, extradition was disproportionate having regard to the statutory criteria and the period already spent in custody.

1. Appeal allowed. The district judge had not erred by failing to give detailed reasons on statutory proportionality because the issue had been conceded. However, because the matter was properly raised on appeal and the relevant custody period constituted a material change, the appellate court made its own assessment under section 21A.
2. Statutory proportionality and Convention-rights compatibility are separate bars. The statutory assessment is confined to the matters in section 21A(3), subject to the judge’s discretion under section 21A(2) as to whether and how far each factor should be addressed.
3. The offences were non-serious. The guidance in the Criminal Practice Directions is a floor rather than a ceiling. Conduct outside the listed categories may still be trivial or non-serious. The low value of the goods, the unsuccessful payment-card use and the absence of significant harm supported that conclusion, notwithstanding multiple offences and previous offending.
4. As to likely penalty, the Czech authorities supplied only a sentencing range of six months to three years. The maximum was of limited assistance because it covered a broad range of conduct. Domestic sentencing practice could properly be used as a measure of likelihood. On the facts, a custodial sentence would not realistically have been imposed in England and Wales, and the appellant had already spent more than six months on remand.
5. The requesting state’s wish to proceed was relevant to the question of less coercive measures, but did not outweigh the lack of seriousness and the likelihood that the appellant had already served any sentence that would probably be imposed.
6. Extradition was therefore disproportionate under section 21A(4)(b). The order for extradition was quashed, making it unnecessary to determine the Article 8 challenge.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Law’s order of 30 January 2024 was appealed with permission granted by Jay J on 20 June 2024. The appeal was allowed and the extradition order was quashed.