AC-2025-LON-000249 - [2025] EWHC 2221 (Admin)

The renewed application again highlights the Applicant’s residency in the UK since 2018, his open living, and his settled status.

A new point raised is the “apparent lack of an effective investigation” in relation to the Applicant’s involvement in the offence, arguing that this factor, in combination with others, ought to render extradition disproportionate. The general principle, as established in Georgescu v Romania [2025] EWHC 864 (Admin), is that it is the effect of any delay on Article 8 rights, rather than the delay itself, that is relevant, unless there were extraordinary reasons such as discrimination or intentional heel-dragging. There has been no such suggestion in this case.

It was nevertheless argued that the six-year delay since the offence was committed was not given sufficient weight and that the District Judge should have sought information about the causes of this delay, and why for example, an accusation warrant had not been issued. As the Respondent submitted, it was not incumbent upon the Judicial Authority to proceed by way of an accusation warrant and although there was evidence that his mother had disclosed that he was in the United Kingdom no mention was made of his address. More significantly however, the District Judge explicitly found that “there have not been lengthy delay in the domestic proceedings”. This is not inconsistent with the fact that proceedings commenced in January 2019, a final conviction was reached by May 2024, and the AW was promptly issued in August 2024. Given this factual finding, it is difficult to see how this ground could succeed.

The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Andrysiewicz v Circuit Court in Lodz, Poland [2025] UKSC 23, made clear that cases where Article 8 defeats the public interest in extradition will be “rare”, and it is “most unlikely” for interference with private life to be sufficient. A successful challenge will require evidence of an “exceptionally severe impact on family life”. The Applicant’s submissions do not establish such an exceptional severity in relation to his family life.