Diyan Robertov Igov v Pernik Prosecutor’s Office, Bulgaria

An extradition appeal may succeed in relation to one conviction while the extradition order remains effective for another. Where dual criminality is not established, the requested person must be discharged in respect of that offence.

The later activation of an already-imposed suspended sentence is ordinarily a method of executing the penalty, not a new hearing requiring consideration under section 20 of the Extradition Act 2003. A clear assurance of a retrial, including the necessary defence and witness rights, removes the section 20 bar.

On an article 8 appeal, the court reviews the District Judge’s decision rather than conducting a fresh balancing exercise. Extradition will rarely be disproportionate because of family life. The impact must be exceptionally severe and outweigh the very weighty public interest in extradition.

The appellant challenged the decision of District Judge Calloway, dated 6 August 2024, ordering his extradition to Bulgaria in respect of two convictions. One conviction concerned dangerous motorcycle riding in 2017 and resulted in an eight-month suspended sentence. The second concerned drug-driving in 2018 and resulted in a one-year sentence, with the earlier suspended sentence subsequently activated.

It was accepted that the second conviction did not satisfy dual criminality under section 10 of the Extradition Act 2003. The appeal therefore raised whether the appellant should be discharged more generally because of his absence from the later proceedings and the availability of a retrial, and whether extradition would be a disproportionate interference with family life under section 21 and article 8 ECHR.

1. Ground 1. The District Judge had erred by ordering extradition in respect of the second conviction, since dual criminality was not established. The appeal was allowed on that ground, and the case was treated as one involving the first conviction and its eight-month penalty only.
2. Section 20. The later event was the activation of the eight-month suspended sentence following the commission of a further offence. Under Ardic (C-571/17), activation altered the method of execution rather than the quantum of the sentence. It was therefore not a hearing caught by section 20. The warrant’s reference to a total of one year and eight months merely aggregated two sentences for extradition purposes and did not create a combined sentence.
3. In any event, the appellant had a right to a retrial. The warrant’s completed provision concerning a second hearing, together with the further information supplied by Bulgaria, clearly guaranteed a retrial and the right to defend himself, examine prosecution witnesses and call defence witnesses. The fact that procedural steps had to be taken to invoke the right did not invalidate it. Ground 2 was dismissed.
4. Article 8. The proper appellate approach was review. Applying Belbin, intervention required misapplication of legal principles, an unreasonable material finding, failure to take account of a relevant factor, reliance on an irrelevant factor, or an irrational or perverse conclusion. The fresh evidence did not satisfy the statutory test for upsetting the decision.
5. The District Judge was entitled to regard the first offence as serious and to take account of the appellant’s fugitivity, the public interest in complying with treaty obligations, and the need to ensure that the United Kingdom was not a safe haven for foreign criminals. The family’s hardship, including the effect on the appellant’s partner and children, was accepted but was not exceptionally severe in the relevant legal sense. Ground 3 was dismissed.
6. The appeal was therefore allowed on ground 1 but dismissed on grounds 2 and 3. The appellant was not entitled to discharge in respect of the first conviction.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 allowed in part.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Calloway ordered extradition on 6 August 2024. The order was corrected so that extradition related only to the conviction satisfying dual criminality.