![AC-2024-LON-002386 - [2025] EWHC 2999 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
Delay
Delay
The District Judge made a specific finding that “there was no delay of note” in respect of AW1, whereas there is, in fact, a 4-year delay unaccounted for in respect of that warrant (based on the activation date of the suspended sentence). The Judge found some culpable delay in respect of AW2. Given the fact that there was no clear information to explain delay in respect of either warrant, it was submitted that the Judge erred in only attributing delay to AW2.
The Respondent accepts there may have been an error regarding the date that the suspended sentence for the 2014 offences was imposed. Nevertheless, it was argued, this error does not undermine the weight the District Judge placed on the delay, given her findings on fugitivity, the seriousness of the offence, and the length of the sentence regarding AW1.
It does not seem to me that the error identified could possibly have tipped the balance the other way given the factors which the Judge was bound to take into account in favour of 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