District Court of Bratislava (Slovakia) v Gabriel Soltes

Under Extradition Act 2003, proportionality in an accusation case is assessed holistically by reference only to the statutory matters: the seriousness of the alleged conduct, the likely penalty, and the availability of less coercive measures. Domestic sentencing practice is a useful, hypothetical guide, not a requirement to calculate a precise sentence. The court must primarily rely on the requesting state’s warrant and information and should avoid resolving disputed facts. A fugitive’s conduct may weigh against less coercive measures. Even where extradition is proportionate under the statutory test, Article 8 requires a separate balancing exercise. The public interest in extradition, including treaty obligations and the fugitive’s conduct, may outweigh residence, family and health considerations.

The Slovakian judicial authority appealed against a District Judge’s decision discharging Gabriel Soltes from extradition proceedings. The District Judge held that surrender would be disproportionate under section 21A(1)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003 and incompatible with Article 8 ECHR. The respondent was sought for trial in Slovakia for alleged fraud involving two victims and approximately €1,730.

The appeal challenged the District Judge’s assessment of the seriousness of the conduct, likely penalty, less coercive measures and Article 8. The central issues were whether the statutory proportionality test had been correctly applied and whether the respondent’s personal and family circumstances outweighed the public interest in extradition.

The appeal was allowed, the discharge order was quashed and the case was remitted to the District Judge with a direction to proceed in accordance with the judgment.

1. Statutory proportionality. Section 21A(1)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003 requires a holistic assessment based only on the matters specified in section 21A(3): seriousness, likely penalty and the possibility of less coercive measures. The court must make its own assessment, while respecting mutual recognition and the requesting state’s judicial authority.
2. Evidence and sentencing. The principal source for assessing seriousness and penalty is the warrant and further information. The court should not resolve disputed issues about intent, encouragement or culpability on the requested person’s evidence unless the requesting authority accepts them or they are plainly uncontentious. Domestic sentencing practice is a hypothetical heuristic. It need not produce a precise sentence where the available information leaves the likely penalty uncertain.
3. Application. The alleged fraud against two victims, involving impersonation and approximately £1,500, was not a minor financial offence or trivial offending. The safe conclusion was that the possible penalties included custody, without deciding that custody was likely or unlikely. Because the respondent was a fugitive, less coercive measures were reasonably regarded as inappropriate.
4. Article 8. Article 8 involves a separate and wider balancing exercise. The public interest in extradition remained significant because the respondent was a fugitive. His residence, employment and family circumstances carried some weight, but unreliable evidence and the ordinary nature of the health issues limited their significance. The public interest outweighed the Article 8 interests of the respondent and his family.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the Slovakian judicial authority’s appeal against the District Judge’s decision of 4 June 2023, quashed the discharge order and remitted the case under section 29 of the Extradition Act 2003.