Cristian Radu v Ingoldstadt Local Court, Germany

In an extradition appeal involving Article 8, the court must assess proportionality by weighing the interference with private and family life against the constant and weighty public interest in extradition. The family unit must be considered as a whole, and the interests of children are a primary consideration. The presence of a partner and young children does not, by itself, outweigh the public interest.

Fresh evidence arising after the extradition hearing may be admitted where it is relevant to the Article 8 assessment. The appellate court must determine the relevant questions on the basis of all material available at the appeal. Permission requires a ground that is reasonably arguable. A new child, although relevant, does not necessarily make an otherwise careful proportionality assessment reasonably arguable.

The Applicant sought renewed permission to appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order made by District Judge Callaway on 21 March 2024 for his extradition to Germany. The extradition request concerned seven alleged mobile-phone thefts.

The sole proposed ground was that extradition would constitute a disproportionate interference with the Applicant’s Article 8 rights. After the substantive hearing, the Applicant and his partner had a fifth child. The central issues were whether evidence concerning that birth was admissible and whether, considering all material available at the appeal, the Article 8 challenge was reasonably arguable.

1. Fresh evidence. Evidence concerning the birth of the Applicant’s fifth child was admissible. It arose after the extradition hearing and was relevant to the impact of extradition on the family unit. Applying RT v Poland and Hungary v Fenyvesi, the court had to consider the Article 8 issue on the basis of all material available at the appeal.
2. Article 8 proportionality. The required exercise was to balance interference with private and family life against the public interest in extradition. The family unit had to be considered as a whole, with the interests of the children treated as a primary factor. The public interest included bringing accused persons to trial, ensuring sentences were served, honouring treaty obligations and preventing safe havens.
3. The existence of a partner and young children did not automatically outweigh the public interest. Although exceptionality was not a legal test, the high threshold for a successful Article 8 challenge remained. The birth of another child was relevant but did not, on the material before the court, materially undermine the District Judge’s careful balancing exercise.
4. Disposition. The Applicant’s ground was not reasonably arguable. Renewed permission to appeal was refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): District Judge Callaway ordered extradition on 21 March 2024. Mr Justice Morris refused permission on the papers on 7 February 2025. Mr Justice Sweeting refused renewed permission on 10 June 2025.