District Court Košice II, Slovak Republic v Ľubomίr Macko
[2024] EWHC 2564 (Admin)
District Court of Bratislava (Slovakia) v Gabriel Soltes
30 October 2024
[2024] EWHC 2754 (Admin)
High Court
A man was not extradited from the UK to Slovakia for a relatively minor fraud because a judge wrongly considered his personal circumstances. A higher court corrected this, saying the judge should have focused only on the information provided by the Slovakian authorities, resulting in the extradition being ordered.
Key Facts
- •Appeal by Slovakian judicial authority against a Westminster Magistrates' Court decision refusing extradition of Gabriel Soltes.
- •Soltes accused of fraud in Slovakia (€1730 total) in 2015, with a warrant issued in 2021.
- •Soltes confessed in 2016 but later sought to reopen proceedings, becoming a fugitive.
- •District Judge discharged Soltes due to incompatibility with Article 8 rights and disproportionality under the Extradition Act 2003.
- •Soltes argued passage of time, proportionality, health, and Article 8 as bars to extradition.
- •District Judge found Soltes' evidence unreliable and that he deliberately avoided Slovakian authorities.
- •Appeal court focused on the District Judge's errors in applying proportionality under s. 21A(1)(b) and Article 8.
Legal Principles
Proportionality under s. 21A(1)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003 requires consideration of seriousness of the offence, likely penalty, and availability of less coercive measures; the court's judgment is broad but should respect mutual confidence with the issuing authority.
Miraszewski v Poland [2014] EWHC 4261 (Admin), [2015] 1 WLR 3929
In applying domestic sentencing practice to assess likely penalty, the court should primarily use information from the warrant and further information provided by the requesting state and avoid making extensive findings of fact based on the respondent's evidence.
Antochi v Germany [2020] EWHC 3092 (Admin)
Article 8 ECHR balancing exercise considers a wider range of factors than s. 21A(3), including the public interest in extradition and the respondent's private life in the UK.
Norris v USA [2010] UKSC 16, [2010] 2 AC 487; HH v Italy [2012] UKSC 25, [2013] 1 AC 338; Celinski v Poland [2015] EWHC 1274 (Admin), [2016] 1 WLR 551
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
District Judge erred in applying proportionality under s. 21A(1)(b) by making his own findings of fact beyond the warrant and further information, conducting an overly precise sentencing exercise, and failing to adequately consider Soltes' status as a fugitive.
Order discharging Soltes quashed.
The Court of Appeal found that extradition would not be disproportionate under s. 21A(1)(b) and that the public interest in extradition outweighed Soltes’ Article 8 rights.
Case remitted to District Judge to proceed accordingly.
The District Judge's decision on Article 8 was also flawed due to reliance on erroneous findings regarding the seriousness of the offence and likely sentence.