Factual and Procedural Background
Two individuals, hereafter referred to as Appellant A and Appellant B, cousins by relation and originally from Afghanistan, are subjects of European Arrest Warrants (EAWs) issued by the Specialist Court in Slovakia. Both Appellants arrived in the United Kingdom in the early 2000s and successfully claimed asylum, residing there since. The EAWs, issued in August 2019 and certified by the National Crime Agency shortly thereafter, accuse the Appellants of conspiring to intentionally prepare the murder of a third party, the victim, who is Appellant A's daughter and resides permanently in Slovakia.
The allegations include detailed surveillance and planning activities conducted in Slovakia and Austria, as well as preparatory acts within the United Kingdom. The criminal charge under Slovakian law encompasses preparation for murder and accomplice liability.
In February 2020, a District Judge ordered the extradition of both Appellants to Slovakia. Appeals against these Orders were lodged, primarily invoking the forum bar under section 19B of the Extradition Act 2003, with additional grounds relating to potential human rights concerns and health conditions.
New evidence was submitted by all parties after the original extradition hearing, including expert medical reports and official correspondence concerning investigative cooperation between UK and Slovakian authorities. The court considered the admissibility of this evidence in the context of the appeals.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the forum bar under section 19B of the Extradition Act 2003 applies to bar the extradition of the Appellants on the basis that it would not be in the interests of justice.
- Whether Article 5(2) of the Framework Decision imposes any enforceable legal conditions affecting the extradition, particularly concerning parole eligibility following a life sentence.
- Whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 due to Appellant B’s health and mental state.
- The admissibility and impact of new evidence submitted after the original extradition hearing on the above issues.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- Both Appellants argued that extradition should be barred under the forum bar provision, contending that a substantial measure of relevant activity occurred in the United Kingdom and that the interests of justice weigh against extradition.
- Appellant A additionally argued that extradition should be refused based on Article 5(2) of the Framework Decision due to concerns about parole eligibility following a potential life sentence in Slovakia.
- Appellant B submitted that extradition would be unjust or oppressive under section 25 of the 2003 Act due to his deteriorating mental health and the risk of suicide if extradited and imprisoned in Slovakia.
- Both Appellants sought to rely on new medical and legal evidence not available at the original hearing to support their submissions.
Requesting Judicial Authority's Arguments
- The Requesting Judicial Authority (RJA) sought to admit new evidence to clarify investigative cooperation and the status of a key witness, arguing that this information was relevant and should be admitted in the interests of justice.
- The RJA maintained that the forum bar did not apply and that extradition was justified given the locus of the intended offence and the interests of the victim.
- The RJA disputed that Article 5(2) of the Framework Decision imposed any binding legal requirements on the court to impose conditions related to parole or sentence review.
- The RJA argued that the health concerns raised by Appellant B did not meet the high threshold required to bar extradition on the grounds of injustice or oppression.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Shaw v Government of the United States of America [2014] EWHC 4654 (Admin) |
Standard of appellate review for forum bar decisions under section 19B of the 2003 Act. |
Guided the court's approach to whether the District Judge’s decision on the forum bar should be overturned, emphasizing the need for an overall value judgment and that the appeal court should only interfere if the decision was wrong. |
| Atraskevic v Prosecutor General's Office, Republic of Lithuania [2016] 1 WLR 2762 |
Appellate review standards in extradition appeals. |
Supported the principle that appellate courts should defer to the trial judge’s findings unless clearly wrong. |
| Love v Government of the United States of America [2018] 1 WLR 2889 |
Interpretation of forum bar provisions and the concept of "interests of justice". |
Clarified the scope and application of the forum bar and the weighing of factors under section 19B, emphasizing the calibrated nature of the "interests of justice" test. |
| FK v Germany [2017] EWHC 2160 (Admin) |
Admissibility of new evidence on extradition appeals. |
Provided guidance on admitting fresh evidence on appeal, supporting the court’s decision to admit relevant new evidence from the RJA and Appellant B. |
| Szombathely City Court v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin) |
Criteria for admitting new evidence on extradition appeals under section 27(4) of the 2003 Act. |
Applied to Appellant A’s attempt to admit new medical evidence, leading to its exclusion due to failure to meet criteria. |
| Criminal Proceedings against Pupino [2006] QB 83 |
Interpretation of Framework Decisions in domestic law. |
Referenced regarding the submission that the Framework Decision should be given effect, with the court rejecting an expansive application of Article 5(2). |
| Turner v Government of the United States of America [2012] EWHC 2426 (Admin) |
Application of section 25 of the 2003 Act concerning risk of suicide. |
Provided the legal framework for assessing whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive due to mental health risks, applied to Appellant B’s submissions. |
| Wolkowicz v Regional Court, Poland [2013] 1 WLR 402 |
Threshold for refusal of extradition on health grounds. |
Supported the high threshold for finding extradition unjust or oppressive on mental health grounds. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court undertook a detailed analysis of the forum bar under section 19B of the Extradition Act 2003. It first confirmed that a substantial measure of the relevant conduct occurred in the United Kingdom, thereby engaging the section 19B(3) factors. The court then examined each enumerated factor, giving substantial weight to the place where most harm was intended to occur (Slovakia), the interests of the victim (who resides in Slovakia), and the potential delay if prosecution were to be conducted in the UK. The Appellants’ strong connections to the UK were acknowledged but deemed insufficient to bar extradition given the other considerations.
Regarding the admissibility of new evidence, the court applied established criteria distinguishing between evidence that could have been obtained with reasonable diligence and evidence that was decisive. It admitted new evidence from the RJA and Appellant B but excluded certain late medical evidence from Appellant A as not meeting the criteria.
On the issue of Article 5(2) of the Framework Decision, the court held that it does not impose a binding legal standard enforceable by the court. Rather, it permits Member States to adopt certain measures but does not require them, and thus no condition could be imposed on extradition based on this provision.
Concerning the health-based challenge under section 25 of the 2003 Act, the court applied the established high threshold requiring a substantial risk of suicide linked to a lack of capacity to resist the impulse. The evidence showed that while Appellant B’s mental health had deteriorated, there was no sufficient risk of suicide that would render extradition unjust or oppressive, especially given the presumption that Slovakian authorities would provide appropriate care.
Holding and Implications
The court DISMISSED both appeals, affirming the District Judge’s Orders for extradition of the Appellants to Slovakia.
The direct consequence is that extradition will proceed. The decision does not establish new legal precedent but confirms the application of the forum bar provisions, the limited legal effect of Article 5(2) of the Framework Decision, and the high threshold for health-based bars to extradition under section 25 of the 2003 Act in the context of European Arrest Warrants.