Joseph Nathaniel Williams v Spain

In an extradition case engaging Article 8 ECHR, the interference with private and family life must be balanced against the public interest in extradition. Strong public interest considerations may decisively outweigh family ties in the United Kingdom, particularly where the person was convicted abroad, knowingly left that country as a fugitive, and deliberately placed himself beyond the foreign authorities’ reach. The court may refuse permission to appeal where the proportionality conclusion below was plainly right and the proposed challenge is unarguable.

The appellant, a British citizen, was wanted for extradition to Spain following his conviction and sentence there for sexual offences. A District Judge ordered extradition on 19 August 2022 after an oral hearing at which the appellant was represented and gave evidence.

Permission to appeal was refused on the papers by Sir Duncan Ouseley on 24 October 2023. The appellant renewed the application out of time and appeared in person. The central issue was whether extradition would be a disproportionate interference with the Article 8 rights of the appellant and his family, having regard to his United Kingdom ties, the effect on his adult children and granddaughter, prison conditions, and the period spent on remand.

1. The court extended time for the late notice of renewal because the appellant was in prison and was appearing in person. It declined to adjourn because he understood the issue, had been represented at the extradition hearing, had given evidence, and was able clearly to explain his case.

2. The Article 8 issue required assessment of whether extradition was a proportionate interference with private and family life. The District Judge had conducted the Article 8 balance-sheet exercise, considering the appellant’s United Kingdom ties, his seven adult children, the impact on family members including a young granddaughter, and the competing public interest in extradition.

3. The District Judge had unassailably found that the appellant returned to the United Kingdom as a fugitive, knowing of his conviction and sentence and deliberately placing himself beyond the reach of the Spanish authorities. That finding materially strengthened the public interest in extradition.

4. The public interest considerations decisively outweighed the matters relied on against extradition. The appellant’s family circumstances, claimed difficulties in a Spanish prison, wish to serve the sentence in the United Kingdom, and the period of qualifying remand did not make extradition disproportionate.

5. The conclusion below was plainly right and the proposed appeal was plainly unarguable. Permission to appeal was refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appellant renewed his application for permission to appeal against the extradition order. The application was refused.
• District Judge: Extradition to Spain was ordered on 19 August 2022.
• Permission decision: Sir Duncan Ouseley refused permission to appeal on the papers on 24 October 2023.