District Court Košice II, Slovak Republic v Ľubomίr Macko

Section 29 of the Extradition Act 2003 governs appeals, requiring the court to determine if the lower court should have decided differently and if the correct decision would have led to a different outcome.

Section 29, Extradition Act 2003

In proportionality assessments, the court must give appropriate respect to the lower court's factual and evaluative assessments.

Antochi v Germany [2020] EWHC 3092 (Admin)

Section 21A(1)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003 addresses whether extradition is disproportionate, considering the seriousness of the conduct, the likely penalty, and the possibility of less coercive measures.

Section 21A(1)(b), Extradition Act 2003

Miraszewski v Poland [2014] EWHC 4261 (Admin) provides guidance on interpreting section 21A(1)(b), including the relevance of the Sentencing Council guidelines and the concept of a 'floor' rather than a 'ceiling' for seriousness assessments.

Miraszewski v Poland [2014] EWHC 4261 (Admin)

Vascenkovs v Latvia [2023] EWHC 2830 (Admin) confirms Miraszewski remains good law regarding the proportionality test under section 21A(1)(b).

Vascenkovs v Latvia [2023] EWHC 2830 (Admin)

Appellate review of proportionality decisions considers whether the lower court's decision was within the range of reasonable responses, not whether it was definitively right or wrong.

Re B (A child) (Care proceedings: threshold criteria) [2013] UKSC 33

A suspended sentence, while treated as a custodial sentence under the Sentencing Act 2020 for other purposes, is distinct from an immediate custodial sentence for proportionality analysis.

Antochi v Germany and H(H) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic