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

Mr Fitzgerald submitted that in conducting the balancing exercise the Judge was obviously and seriously mistaken in a number of respects. She failed to attribute the proper weight to the unique and compelling combination of features in this case and her decision was wrong. She failed to adequately reflect the extreme gravity of the Appellant’s condition and the high risk of suicide and certainty of deterioration. Even if the threshold for oppression under section 25 was not met, the very real risk of suicide and certainty of deterioration remain highly relevant to the lower test on proportionality under Article 8. The Judge failed to reflect the disastrous effect of extradition on the Appellant’s family and did not give any real recognition to the effect on each member of the family. The Judge failed to reflect the significant difference between financial offending and violent offending. The decision not to seek the Appellant’s extradition from Israel and the opportunistic application to seek his extradition from the UK under a more favourable regime made the current extradition request all the more disproportionate. The lack of urgency in seeking the Appellant’s extradition from Israel was relevant to the public interest in obtaining his extradition from the UK. The Judge failed to give any weight to this unexplained delay.