Miklovan Bazegurore v Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of Appeal in Ghent, Belgium

In an extradition appeal based on Article 8 ECHR, family hardship defeats extradition only in the rare case where its impact is exceptionally severe and outweighs the strong public interest in extradition. The seriousness and circumstances of the offending materially affect the weight of that public interest.

The possibility of early release in the requesting state is ordinarily a minor factor. Unless agreed or uncontested evidence demonstrates an overwhelming probability of release, its timing, conditions and probationary consequences cannot safely be predicted and add little weight against extradition. The appellate court reviews the District Judge’s overall evaluation and interferes only for a material legal, factual or evaluative error.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Leong’s order for his extradition to Belgium to serve the balance of a sentence for serious people-smuggling offending. He relied on Article 8 ECHR, particularly the effect of extradition on his wife and two children, one of whom had severe autistic-spectrum and developmental difficulties.

Permission to appeal was granted on the Article 8 ground. The appellant also sought to adduce further psychological and witness evidence. The central issues were whether that evidence should be admitted, whether the possibility of early release in Belgium reduced the public interest in extradition, and whether the District Judge’s proportionality assessment was legally or evaluatively wrong.

1. Appeal dismissed. The fresh evidence was considered de bene esse, but it was not decisive and its admission was not required to avoid a breach of the ECHR.
2. The governing Article 8 inquiry required a balance between the interference with the private and family lives of the appellant and his family and the public interest in extradition. There is no freestanding exceptionality test, but the public interest is constant and weighty. In practice, extradition will ordinarily be proportionate unless family-life consequences are exceptionally severe. The seriousness of the offence determines the weight of the public interest.
3. Applying Andrysiewicz, the bare possibility of early release in Belgium carried little or no weight. The evidence did not establish the overwhelming probability required in a rare case, and this court could not predict the timing, probationary period or conditions of any Belgian release.
4. The appellant’s additional restrictions in the United Kingdom, including closed prison conditions and a curfew, did not materially reduce the public interest in extradition. The consequences arose from his international offending, and the overnight curfew also enabled him to remain with his family while awaiting extradition.
5. The children’s difficulties and the substantial burden on the appellant’s wife were accepted. They did not amount to the exceptionally severe impact required to outweigh the public interest in extradition for organised, repeated and grave people-smuggling offending. The availability of family, friends and public support, and the wife’s previous ability to cope during imprisonment, were relevant matters.
6. The appellate court’s task was review, not substitution of its own assessment. Under Belbin, intervention required misapplication of established principles, an unreasonable material factual finding, failure to consider a relevant factor, consideration of an irrelevant factor, or an irrational or perverse overall conclusion. The District Judge’s evaluation was coherent and correct.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 dismissed. The court upheld District Judge Leong’s decision of 14 June 2023 ordering extradition to Belgium.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: the appellant was arrested on 26 June 2019 and extradition was ordered by District Judge Leong on 14 June 2023.