![AC-2024-LON-002386 - [2025] EWHC 2999 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
Gravity of Offending
Gravity of Offending
In respect of the convictions in AW1 (criminal damage and two common assaults), the Appellant argued that this conduct falls towards the lower end of the spectrum of criminal behaviour. In relation to the accusation warrant (AW2) for forgery, the Appellant argued that the offence is not serious enough to warrant extradition, especially given the lack of response from the JA regarding less coercive measures (see further below).
The District Judge was, in my view, plainly entitled to find that the offences were serious.
The offending in AW1 included assaults using a weapon (a golf club) and criminal damage. The 2014 theft was characterised as a serious offence of dwelling burglary involving significant planning and breaking into a property with others. This was reflected in the sentence.
The alleged offence in AW2 is not a trivial offence of dishonesty and carries a maximum penalty of up to 3 years imprisonment.
- 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