Mario Bakai v District Court in Dunaiska Streda (A Slovakian Judicial Authority)

A qualifying curfew is capable in law of reducing the public interest in extradition. Its effect is fact-sensitive. The court must assess the weight of the relevant public-interest considerations in the particular case and then conduct the overall Article 8 balancing exercise. A curfew need not substantially reduce the public interest in extradition to be a relevant factor. Certification under Extradition Act 2003, section 32(4), requires a point of law of general public importance to be involved in the decision. Fact-specific questions about the weight of competing considerations ordinarily do not satisfy that requirement.

The appellant applied for certification of a point of law and for leave to appeal following the Administrative Court’s judgment in [2024] EWHC 1769 (Admin). The underlying decision concerned the effect of a qualifying curfew in the Article 8 balancing exercise on an extradition appeal.

The proposed certified question was in what circumstances a qualifying curfew could be considered to reduce the public interest in extradition. The court had to decide whether that question involved a point of law of general public importance and, consequently, whether the statutory test for leave to appeal was met.

1. Applications refused. The court refused certification under section 32(4)(a) of the Extradition Act 2003 and, consequently, refused leave to appeal under section 32(4)(b).
2. A qualifying curfew can, as a matter of law, be taken into account as a factor reducing the public interest in extradition. The court had expressly accepted that proposition in the underlying judgment.
3. The necessary assessment is fact-sensitive. The question is whether, in the particular case, the curfew substantially reduces the weight of the public-interest considerations supporting extradition, and how the competing factors are balanced under Article 8. The court’s conclusion that the public interest remained very strong was specific to the case.
4. The curfew formed part of the combination of factors weighing against extradition, but those factors were outweighed by the considerations in favour. The court relied on Polom v Poland [2024] EWHC 2708 (Admin) as confirming that the exercise is highly fact-sensitive and intensely fact-specific.
5. Because the proposed question concerned the evaluation and balancing of facts rather than a general legal issue involved in the decision, it did not meet the certification threshold. The court also recorded administrative shortcomings concerning the filing and receipt of the respondent’s representations, but those did not alter the substantive determination.

• High Court (Administrative Court): In [2024] EWHC 1769 (Admin), the court determined the underlying extradition appeal.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The present court refused certification under section 32(4)(a) and leave to appeal under section 32(4)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003.