![AC-2024-LON-002386 - [2025] EWHC 2999 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Conclusions
The Judge was, in my view, not wrong to find the extradition proportionate in relation to AW2. The offence of forgery of administrative documents was not minor, especially considering the indirect harm caused to an innocent third party. A custodial sentence was a likely outcome given the Appellant’s recidivism and commission of the offence while subject to a suspended sentence. Finally, the low weight given to the lack of response regarding less coercive measures was justified, particularly in the context of the co-existing, more serious AW1. The fact that less coercive measures had been applied for but no response received is not itself a bar to extradition.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The Arrest Warrants
- AW 2
- The Extradition Hearing
- The Appeal/Application
- The Grounds of Appeal
- Ground 2 – Section 25 in respect of AW 1 and AW 2
- Ground 3 – Section 21A / Article 8 ECHR in respect of AW1 and AW2
- The Appellant’s Health
- Fugitivity
- Delay
- Gravity of Offending
- Impact on Family
- Overall Conclusion on Article 8 grounds
- Ground 4 - AW2 whether disproportionate section 21A(1)(b)
- Seriousness of the Conduct ( Section 21 A(3)(a))
- Likely Penalty ( Section 21 A(3)(b))
- Less Coercive Measures ( Section 21 A(3)(c))
- Conclusions
- Ground 1 – Section 12A in respect of AW 2 only: absence of a decision to charge or try
- Discussion and Conclusion
- Fresh Evidence
- Conclusions