Igor Gisca v Prosecutor General of Trieste, Italy
[2023] EWHC 241 (Admin)
Dusko Knezevic v The Government of the Republic of Montenegro
4 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 761 (Admin)
High Court
A British court decided to send a man, Dusko Knezevic, back to Montenegro to face trial. Knezevic argued the charges were political and the Montenegrin prisons were unsafe, but the court disagreed, saying there wasn't enough evidence to support his claims. The court also refused to consider new evidence provided after the initial decision.
Key Facts
- •Dusko Knezevic's extradition to Montenegro was sought for various offences including fraud, money laundering, and misuse of authority.
- •The Senior District Judge ordered extradition, finding no barriers under the Extradition Act 2003.
- •Knezevic appealed on three grounds: (1) the 'Airports case' did not constitute an extradition offence; (2) extradition was barred by extraneous political considerations; (3) extradition was incompatible with Article 3 of the ECHR due to prison conditions.
- •The applicant sought to admit new evidence at various stages of the appeal process.
Legal Principles
Extradition Act 2003, sections 78(4), 81, 87(3).
Extradition Act 2003
Dishonesty is required for an extradition offence under Montenegrin law.
Montenegro's Criminal Code, Articles 24 and 272
Extraneous considerations under section 81 (a) and (b): the prosecution must be at least partly motivated by political opinions.
Love v Government of the United States of America [2018] EWHC 172 (Admin)
Article 3 of the ECHR: substantial grounds for believing a real risk of ill-treatment; presumption of compliance by signatory states; need for cogent evidence to rebut presumption; assessment of assurances.
Urbonas v Lithuania [2024] EWHC 33 (Admin), R (Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2005] UKHL 38, Lord Advocate v Dean [2017] UKSC 44, Bazys and Besan v The Vilnius County Court [2022] EWHC 1094 (Admin)
Outcomes
Permission to appeal refused on all grounds.
The Judge's findings were supported by the evidence and he did not err in law.
Permission to appeal refused on Ground 1 (Airports Case): the alleged conduct constituted an extradition offence.
The Montenegrin offence required dishonesty, and the applicant's actions implied dishonesty.
Permission to appeal refused on Ground 2 (Extraneous Considerations): the prosecution was not politically motivated.
The Judge properly considered the evidence, including the chronology of events, and concluded there was no evidence of political motivation.
Permission to appeal refused on Ground 3 (Article 3 of ECHR): no real risk of ill-treatment in Montenegrin prisons.
No evidence rebutted the presumption of compliance with Article 3, and assurances given by the Montenegrin authorities were sufficient.
Applications to admit new evidence refused.
The new evidence would not have affected the Judge's decision.