AC-2023-LON-003019 - [2025] EWHC 1851 (Admin)

Mr Fitzgerald did not seek to challenge the Judge’s assessment of the legal framework and relevant general principles to be applied. He accepted that the judge conducted the ‘balance sheet’ exercise required by Celinski. He did not suggest the Judge failed to take a crucial factor into account. The suggestion was made in written submissions that the Judge failed to reflect the significant difference in seriousness between financial offending and other offences, particularly those of violence. Reliance was placed in this regard on the case of Lysiak v Poland [2015] EWHC 3098 but the relevant reference at ¶42 of the judgment cannot be read as establishing any general proposition to this effect. Lysiak was concerned with fraud worth approximately £130,000 (as opposed to €14 million in the present case). More recently, in El-Khouri v USA [2023] EWHC 1879 (Admin), a case involving insider trading, the Divisional Court declined to contrast the seriousness of financial crime and violence and drug-related offences [¶96].

The focus of Mr Fitzgerald’s submissions was on the weight afforded by the judge to the factors she identified. An appeal can only succeed on this basis if crucial factors should have been weighed so significantly differently that the decision should be considered wrong (Love v USA [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin) [26].

The Judge acknowledged the Appellant’s brain injury and its lasting effects. She acknowledged his significant mental health issues; the likelihood of a deterioration in his mental and physical health on extradition with consequent difficulties. She acknowledged his increased risk of suicide on extradition. Nonetheless she found the Appellant had made a significant recovery from his accident and he would cope in custody, with the support of his family. The prison would take the necessary steps to keep him safe. The Judge acknowledged the emotional distress to the Appellant’s family and the difficulties they would face on extradition. She acknowledged their closeness as a family but found they would rally round and support one another and the Appellant as they had been doing since his arrest in the UK. The family had the financial means and will to support one another.

On the evidence before her and for reasons explored earlier in this judgment, the Judge was entitled to conclude the Appellant was not as restricted in his daily activities as claimed. She was entitled to prefer the evidence of Professor Fazel about the extent of the Appellant’s mental health difficulties. She was entitled to consider the German prison authorities will be able to manage the risks associated with the Appellant’s health and to take account of the support provided by the Appellant’s wife, mother and his sister since his arrest.

The Judge acknowledged the consequences to the Appellant of the delay by the German authorities in seeking extradition after issuing the Interpol red notice. She considered this weighed in the Appellant’s favour in the balancing exercise. Nonetheless she was entitled to conclude the delay was short, particularly given the complexity of the alleged offending.

The Judge was not wrong therefore to conclude that the gravity of the interference with the Appellant’s private and family life was outweighed by the gravity of the public interest pursued in seeking extradition for allegations of serious financial offending across Europe, with an estimated loss of 14 million Euros and said to have been masterminded by the Appellant.

The fresh evidence is addressed below.