Akhtar Parvez v Court of Imperia, Italy

On an appeal under section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003, the appellate court asks whether the district judge’s proportionality decision was wrong, rather than conducting a fresh balancing exercise. Errors or omissions in reasoning do not themselves establish that result.

In an Article 8 extradition appeal, the public interest in fulfilling international obligations remains weighty. The court should respect the requesting state’s assessment of criminal seriousness and sentence, although domestic sentencing comparisons may sometimes assist where the interests of children could have altered the sentencing outcome. Serious family consequences will not necessarily make extradition disproportionate where the requested person is not the sole carer, alternative support is available, and the family can reasonably cope.

Akhtar Parvez appealed against a District Judge’s order of 20 January 2025 directing his extradition to Italy to serve a substantial sentence for fraud. The sole permitted ground concerned section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003 and the compatibility of extradition with Article 8 rights.

He relied on the severe needs of his three children, his wife’s mental health, his own deteriorating health, delay, fugitivity, the seriousness of the offending, and fresh evidence. The central questions were whether the District Judge had made an error causing the proportionality outcome to be wrong and whether the fresh evidence would have required discharge.

1. Appeal refused. The District Judge’s order for extradition was not wrong. The fresh evidence applications were also refused.
2. Under section 27(2)–(4) of the Extradition Act 2003, the High Court may allow an appeal only where the district judge ought to have decided a question differently, and that different decision would have required discharge. The court’s function is review, not rehearing. It must focus on whether the ultimate proportionality decision was wrong; reasoning errors or omissions do not by themselves suffice. This approach was stated in USA v Giese (No 1) [2015] EWHC 2733 (Admin) and Polish Judicial Authority v Celinski [2016] 1 WLR 551.
3. The District Judge was entitled to find that the appellant was a fugitive. A person need not have left in breach of an extant restriction or notification condition. The relevant question was whether, on the findings made, he knowingly placed himself beyond the reach of the proceedings. De Zorzi v France [2019] EWHC 2062 (Admin) did not assist the appellant.
4. The District Judge was also entitled to treat the offending as serious and to give substantial weight to the lengthy Italian sentence. A UK court should not ordinarily substitute its own sentencing assessment for that of the requesting state. Domestic sentencing comparisons may matter where the interests of children might have changed an otherwise immediate custodial sentence, but this was not such a case. The principles in Celinski [2016] 1 WLR 551 and HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2013] 1 AC 338 were applied.
5. The family impact had been carefully assessed. The appellant was not the sole carer. His wife had previously cared for the children alone, the children attended school, community and local-authority support was available, and the evidence did not establish that the family would break up or that the children would enter care. A detailed care plan was not required in a case where one parent remained in the jurisdiction. HH [2013] 1 AC 338 and A & B v Hungary [2013] EWHC 3132 (Admin) were distinguished.
6. The appellant’s health did not make extradition disproportionate. The court could proceed on the rebuttable presumption that an EU member state could provide appropriate prison medical care, absent evidence to the contrary: Magiera v District Court of Krakow, Poland [2017] EWHC 2757 (Admin) and Kowalski v Regional Court in Bielsko-Biala, Poland [2017] EWHC 1044 (Admin).
7. Fresh evidence is admitted only if the statutory conditions and applicable procedural principles are satisfied, and it must be decisive in the sense that it would have resulted in discharge. The evidence here did not meet that threshold. Applying Zabolotnyi v Hungary [2021] UKSC 14, Hungary v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231, and Love v USA [2018] 1 WLR 2889, the appellant had not shown an identifiable flaw or that crucial factors should have been weighed so differently as to make the outcome wrong.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the District Judge ordered extradition on 20 January 2025. Permission to appeal was granted on 20 May 2025. The High Court refused the appeal and refused the fresh-evidence applications.