We represented a client in extradition proceedings who was discharged from Westminster Magistrates’ Court under the Extradition Act 2003, following the recent Supreme Court judgment in Andrysiewicz [2025]. The discharge was granted on the basis that extradition would be incompatible with our client’s Requested Person Convention rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Background
Our client and the Requested Person in these proceedings, Mr L, was the subject of a Part 1 extradition warrant issued by the District Court Humenné, Slovakia in August 2024. The National Crime Agency certified the request in March 2025. The warrant related to a sentencing judgment given by the same court in Slovakia in December 2013. The sentence imposed was ten months’ immediate custody. It was agreed between the defence and the Crown Prosecution Service (on behalf of the Slovakian Judicial Authority) that Mr L was not present at the Slovak court hearing although the District Judge ultimately determined that he was aware of it.
The alleged offence was the theft of two plastic bags of shopping from an acquaintance at a public bus station in Humenné, Slovakia in December 2005. The bags contained food, footwear, and a circular saw with the value said to being 187 euros.
Mr L denied the theft. He instructed that the acquaintance was drunk at the time and had left the shopping at the bus stop. Mr L said he took the shopping to his brother’s house for safe keeping as his brother was a friend of the complainant.
The relevant limitation period in Slovakia is interrupted during any time that a defendant remains overseas.
Mr L has lived (albeit he is homeless) in Bradford in the UK since 2005. Mr L is lightly convicted in the UK and has family members here.
Legal arguments before the court
The case was before a District Judge at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in July 2025. The defence raised two main arguments:
- Pursuant to section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003 and in light of the significant passage of time since the alleged offending and the date of the Slovak judgment, it would be unduly oppressive to extradite Mr L at this stage.
- Pursuant to Section 21 of the Extradition Act 2003, Extradition of our client would not be compatible with his Convention rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.
The well cited case of Celinski (2015) explains the balancing act a court must consider. They must consider public interest in honouring extradition requests, mutual confidence and respect between countries. Where the Requested Person is a fugitive, strong counterbalancing arguments are required to deem extradition is disproportionate to their Convention rights. The test to be applied is whether the interference with the Requested Person's private and family life is outweighed by the public interest in extradition. This requires a careful balancing exercise to be conducted by the court, taking into account:
- the gravity of the offence,
- the sentence to be served,
- the personal circumstances of the Requested Person,
- any delay in bringing the case
- the potential impact on other family members.
The District Judge also heard legal arguments from both sides about the admissibility of late served Further Information by the Judicial Authority.
Court decision
The District Judge determined that, despite Mr L was indeed a fugitive, his extradition to Slovakia was not compatible with his Convention rights. She therefore ordered his discharge pursuant to section 21(2) of the Extradition Act 2003.
This is a particularly significant achievement for our client. The hearing closely followed the Supreme Court ruling in Andrysiewicz [2025] which confirmed three points:
- Article 8 challenges will only rarely succeed,
- the Article 8 bar is very high,
- it is “most unlikely” that such a challenge will be successful.
Our client was represented by Kate Nichol who instructed Malcolm Hawkes of Doughty Street Chambers as counsel.
