Arnost Berki v Czech Republic

Permission to appeal an extradition order will be refused where the lower court has carefully assessed the affected Article 8 rights and the strong public interest in extradition clearly outweighs the private and family life impacts. An appellant’s personal circumstances, including care responsibilities, health concerns and children’s needs, do not require an adjournment where the appellant has had a reasonable opportunity to obtain representation, no materially new evidence is available, and the proposed appeal has no realistic prospect of success.

The appellant challenged an extradition order made by District Judge Zani on 14 April 2022. He relied principally on the impact of extradition on his children, mother, partner and family life under Article 8. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Dove J in March 2023. At the renewed hearing, the appellant appeared in person by video link and sought an adjournment to obtain a solicitor. The court also had to determine the appropriate judge to make an order postponing removal because of the appellant’s pending domestic criminal proceedings.

1. Permission refused. The extradition order was plainly proportionate. The lower court had carefully considered the Article 8 rights of the appellant and those affected by extradition. The public interest was particularly strong given the appellant’s criminal convictions, the seriousness of the offending, the breach of a suspended sentence and offending in more than one country.
2. The appellant was not the sole carer for his children and had lived apart from them for significant periods. The judge’s assessment of the children’s circumstances was reliable, and there was no new documentation requiring further investigation. There was no arguable violation of Article 8 or anybody’s human rights.
3. An adjournment was unnecessary. The appellant had represented himself since March 2023, knew of the hearing and knew that his former lawyers no longer acted for him. He had had sufficient opportunity to instruct new lawyers. The case remained clear-cut in Article 8 terms.
4. Under section 36 B(2) of the Extradition Act 2003, extradition could not be carried out until the appellant’s domestic proceedings had been disposed of, withdrawn, discontinued or ordered to lie on the file.
5. The court was the appropriate judge for that purpose. The issue depended on whether rules had been made under section 36 B(4). Criminal Procedure Rule 50.23(3)(b) applied, and the court accordingly made the postponement order.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Zani ordered extradition on 14 April 2022. Dove J refused permission to appeal on the papers in March 2023. On renewal, Fordham J refused permission to appeal and ordered that extradition must await the conclusion of the appellant’s domestic proceedings.