Antonia Omirou v Cypriot Judicial Authority

An extradition appeal under the Extradition Act 2003 may succeed only where the statutory conditions for correcting the appropriate judge’s decision are met. For course-of-conduct offences such as harassment and stalking, sufficient particularisation normally requires an identifiable period, the alleged victim or victims, the conduct constituting the course, and significant constituent incidents. Further information may clarify the warrant.

A prosecution decision need not have formal procedural features. Clear warrant documentation and confirmation that an evidential file has been referred to the prosecuting authority may suffice. Passage of time requires trial prejudice or hardship amounting to oppression. Proportionality and Article 8 assessments are evaluative, and an appellate court should not interfere merely because it might have weighed the factors differently.

Ms Antonia Omirou appealed an order made by District Judge Minhas on 2 February 2024 for her extradition to Cyprus to face allegations of harassment, stalking, data-protection breaches, computer-related forgery and threats.

The appeal was permitted on five grounds: inadequate particularisation, absence of a prosecution decision, oppression by passage of time, disproportionality, and incompatibility with Article 8 of the Convention. The central issues were whether the warrant and subsequent information sufficiently identified the alleged offences and conduct, whether Cyprus had decided to charge or try her, and whether extradition was barred under the statutory and human-rights tests.

1. Appeal dismissed. The extradition order remained in force.
2. Under section 2(4)(c) of the Extradition Act 2003, the requested person must have clarity about the allegations for fairness and specialty. For harassment and stalking, which are course-of-conduct offences, the material should identify the period, the victim or victims, the course of conduct and significant constituent incidents. The requirement does not demand segmentation of one course into distinct exclusive sub-offences.
3. The warrant and further information, read together, supplied sufficient particulars for all three proceedings. The First Nicosia Proceedings identified a course beginning in December 2020 and ending in March 2022, with significant incidents and the additional offences linked to particular conduct. The District Judge was entitled to distinguish Blanchard v Spain, where the warrant was incoherent.
4. For section 12A, the court first examines the warrant documentation as a whole. A formal decision to charge or try is unnecessary. The statements that the prosecution file was complete, had been referred to the Law Service of the Republic, and that Ms Omirou was wanted for prosecution sufficiently indicated that the relevant decisions had been made. References to offences being under investigation did not alter that conclusion. The later expert report was speculative and added nothing material.
5. Section 14 was not engaged. The relevant period began with the first charged conduct in December 2020, not the background allegations from 2008. The Cypriot authorities acted promptly, and the evidence did not establish trial prejudice or hardship amounting to oppression. Financial, career and personal disruption did not meet that threshold.
6. Under section 21A, the assessment of seriousness, likely penalty and less coercive alternatives was evaluative and fact-sensitive. The allegations, considered collectively, were sufficiently serious and there was a realistic prospect of a custodial sentence, including an immediate custodial sentence. Extradition was therefore not disproportionate.
7. The District Judge conducted the required Article 8 balance. The public interests in extradition and bringing alleged offenders to justice were weighty. Ms Omirou’s British citizenship, settled private and family life, career, health and financial interests were relevant but insufficiently evidenced to outweigh those interests. The appellate court could not say that the decision was wrong or unsupportable.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the extradition order dismissed.
• District Judge Minhas: ordered extradition after rejecting seven objections in a reserved judgment dated 2 February 2024.