AC-2024-LON-002386 - [2025] EWHC 2999 (Admin)

Fecha: 14-Nov-2025

Ground 3 – Section 21A / Article 8 ECHR in respect of AW1 and AW2

Ground 3 – Section 21A / Article 8 ECHR in respect of AW1 and AW2

41.

The legal framework for Article 8 ECHR in extradition cases requires the court to examine the way in which extradition will interfere with family life. The central question is always whether the interference with the private and family lives of the requested person and their family members is outweighed by the public interest in extradition. The public interest, which is constant and weighty (and includes ensuring those convicted serve sentences and that the UK honours treaty obligations), will generally outweigh Article 8 rights unless the consequences of the interference are exceptionally severe.

42.

The appropriate approach for judges is the “balance sheet approach,” setting out the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ before arriving at a reasoned conclusion (Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski and Others [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin)). The Judge followed that approach in this case.

43.

The Appellant submitted that:

The Judge failed to properly consider the Appellant’s medical issues and take account of them in the balancing exercise.

ii)

The Judge erred in finding that the Appellant was a fugitive in relation to AW1

iii)

The Judge’s finding in relation to the delay in respect of both warrants was incorrect and the impact of delay was not fully taken into account.

iv)

The Judge failed to attach sufficient weight to the impact of the extradition on the Appellant’s family.

The Judge should have reached a different view in relation to the gravity of the offending in AW1 (a point more fully developed in relation to the arguments advanced under Ground 4 in relation to proportionality).

44.

The Respondent contended that the Judge correctly cited the relevant caselaw and conducted the balancing exercise, and it is not reasonably arguable that she was wrong to order the Appellant’s extradition. This was not a rare case where extradition would be disproportionate and thus in violation of the Appellant’s Article 8 rights.