![AC-2024-LON-002386 - [2025] EWHC 2999 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
Less Coercive Measures ( Section 21 A(3)(c))
Less Coercive Measures (Section 21A(3)(c))
The Appellant argued that the JA failed to respond to a request for less coercive measures made in June 2023, and the Judge’s justification that the Appellant’s presence was required to progress the case (to make a decision to charge or try) was contradictory to her acceptance that the lack of response could weigh against extradition if AW2 stood alone.
The Respondent submitted that the lack of response from the JA regarding less coercive measures is not a bar to extradition. The Judge was entitled to afford it a low weight given the specific context of the proceedings, which involved two separate Arrest Warrants, with AW1 relating to serious offences carrying a long custodial sentence. The Further Information (“FI”) specified that the JA could not progress the case in the Appellant’s absence and required his presence to determine whether to charge or try him, justifying the view that less coercive measures are not presently available.
- 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