Andrej Karicka v Slovakian Judicial Authority

On an Article 8 extradition appeal, proportionality must be assessed through a careful and fact-sensitive balance between the public interest in extradition and the interference with the private and family lives of the extraditee and family members.

The seriousness of the index offence and any material delay affect the weight of the public interest. The court must examine the actual consequences for dependent children and vulnerable family members, including financial insecurity, accommodation and care arrangements. A decision may be appealably wrong where the lower court records relevant evidence but fails to engage with its breadth and depth or with the gravity of the offence. The appeal court may take account of restrictions already experienced on bail or curfew, although that factor may be secondary.

The appellant appealed, with permission, against District Judge Jackson’s decision of 28 August 2024 ordering his extradition to Slovakia to serve a one-year custodial sentence for driving while disqualified on 31 December 2010.

Before the District Judge, the appellant relied on section 14 and section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003. The section 14 challenge based on passage of time failed. The Article 8 challenge focused on the appellant’s long residence in the United Kingdom, his Czech partner, four young children born in the United Kingdom, his role as the family’s sole financial provider, and the consequences of extradition for the family’s income, accommodation and care.

The central issue was whether the District Judge’s conclusion that extradition was proportionate was wrong and therefore required the appellant’s discharge.

1. Appeal allowed. The District Judge’s Article 8 proportionality conclusion was appealably wrong and unsupportable.
2. Under section 26 and section 27 of the Extradition Act 2003, the question was whether the District Judge ought to have decided the relevant question differently and, if so, would have been required to order discharge. Proportionality was approached as a review, applying the categories identified in Re (B) [2013] UKSC 33. After anxious consideration, the appellate court could allow the appeal where the lower court’s conclusion was wrong or unsupportable.
3. The Article 8 assessment required a dynamic balancing exercise. The public interest in extradition remained weighty, but its weight varied with the nature and seriousness of the offence. Delay could reduce that weight and increase the impact on private and family life, consistently with H (H) [2012] UKSC 25.
4. The District Judge had failed to engage adequately with the likely factual consequences for the appellant’s partner and four children. The evidence indicated that the partner could not work or obtain equivalent benefits, the family depended on the appellant’s income, and accommodation with his parents in Slovakia was likely to be impracticable. The children were settled in the United Kingdom and spoke only English. These matters went well beyond ordinary hardship associated with extradition.
5. The District Judge had also failed to assess the relatively minor character of the index offence when weighing the public interest. The offence involved no violence, injury or property damage, and there was no evidence of recidivist driving while disqualified or other special aggravating features. This did not diminish Slovakia’s legitimate interest in securing the return of a fugitive, but it materially affected the proportionality balance.
6. The appellant’s curfew and reporting restrictions were admissible considerations which strengthened the Article 8 case, although they were not central to the result. Properly conducted, the balancing exercise could not have produced the District Judge’s conclusion on these facts.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal from District Judge Jackson’s decision of 28 August 2024, allowed.
• District Court proceedings: extradition ordered to Slovakia to serve a one-year custodial sentence.