Lazarov v Prosecutor's Office In Varnia, Bulgaria

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns extradition proceedings for the requested person ("RP") to Bulgaria pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant issued in April 2017. The RP was convicted in absentia in Bulgaria of two offences related to cannabis cultivation and possession, resulting in a three-year imprisonment sentence enforceable from 21 February 2017. The RP was arrested in the jurisdiction on 22 May 2017 and resisted extradition. The initial extradition hearing was conducted before a district judge at the Westminster Magistrates' Court on 26 March 2018, who ordered extradition on 11 April 2018. The RP appealed to the High Court under sections 26 and 27 of the Extradition Act 2003, arguing that extradition would disproportionately interfere with his private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The appeal was heard on 10 October 2018.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether extradition of the RP would constitute a disproportionate interference with his private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
2. Whether the district judge’s decision contained errors of fact so significant that it failed to properly address the true facts of the case.
3. Whether the High Court could properly allow a statutory appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 given the nature of the errors in the district judge’s reasons.
4. Whether judicial review is the appropriate remedy for the errors identified in the district judge’s decision.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court identified a catalogue of numerous factual errors and omissions in the district judge’s written reasons, which cumulatively rendered the decision unreliable and effectively a nullity. These errors included incorrect identification of the advocate for the Judicial Authority, misdescription of the offence, inaccurate assertions regarding the RP's arrival date in the jurisdiction, incorrect sentence length, repeated mistaken references to another country’s judicial system, and misleading characterisation of the RP’s family circumstances. The court stressed that while minor errors are common in oral judgments, typed and delivered reasons require a higher standard of accuracy. The accumulation of errors undermined the district judge’s exercise of discretion and the factual foundation of the extradition order.

However, the court noted that under section 27 of the Extradition Act 2003, it could only allow the statutory appeal if the district judge "would have been required to order the person's discharge," meaning the case could only be decided in favour of the RP. The court found that this was not the case here, as there were strong reasons both for and against extradition, and thus the statutory appeal could not succeed.

Given the serious errors and the finely balanced nature of the case, the court agreed with the RP's suggestion that judicial review was the appropriate remedy. Judicial review would allow a fresh and proper consideration of the facts by a different experienced district judge, without reference to the flawed reasons. This approach was emphasised as exceptional and not a precedent for other extradition cases.

Following the issue of the judicial review claim, the district judge acknowledged that the incorrect judgment had been provided and agreed that the order should be quashed and the matter remitted for rehearing. The court found this to be a regrettable delay in acknowledging the error, which posed a risk of wrongful extradition.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision is to GRANT permission for judicial review, allow the claim, and QUASH the extradition order made on 11 April 2018. The extradition application must be reheard afresh by a different district judge experienced in extradition law. The RP is permitted to withdraw his statutory appeal as the original order no longer exists.

The direct effect of this decision is to prevent the RP’s extradition based on the flawed decision and to require a new hearing. The court emphasized that this judgment does not set a precedent for judicial review in extradition cases generally, which remain governed by the statutory framework. The ruling underscores the necessity of accurate and factually sound judicial reasoning in extradition proceedings to ensure justice and proper exercise of discretion.