Maria Nieves Hegazey v Concepcion Espejel Jorquera (Spain)
[2024] EWHC 1280 (Admin)
Joseph Nathaniel Williams v Spain
28 February 2024
[2024] EWHC 435 (Admin)
High Court
A man convicted of a crime in Spain fled to the UK. A judge decided he must return to Spain to serve his sentence, even though he has family in the UK. His attempt to appeal this decision was unsuccessful.
Key Facts
- •Joseph Nathaniel Williams (Appellant), a 60-year-old British citizen, is wanted for extradition to Spain.
- •Convicted in Spain in September 2019 for sexual offences against a 12-year-old girl, receiving a four-year sentence.
- •He fled to the UK in March 2020 after the conviction.
- •Extradition was ordered by District Judge Godfrey on 19 August 2022.
- •Appellant has been in custody for 22 months.
- •The sole issue is whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with his Article 8 ECHR rights (right to private and family life).
- •Appellant's previous lawyers argued extradition was proportionate; he now argues otherwise.
- •Permission to appeal was initially refused by Sir Duncan Ouseley on 24 October 2023 and renewed on 29 November 2023.
- •Appellant appeared in person due to his legal aid solicitors coming off record on 29 January 2024.
- •Appellant has seven adult children and a young granddaughter in the UK.
Legal Principles
Article 8 ECHR – Right to respect for private and family life.
European Convention on Human Rights
Proportionality test in extradition cases concerning Article 8 ECHR – Balancing the public interest in extradition against the impact on the individual's private and family life.
Case law (implied)
Outcomes
Permission to appeal refused.
The Judge found the District Judge's conclusion that extradition was proportionate to be plainly right. The public interest in extradition decisively outweighs the Article 8 considerations. The 22 months spent in remand further strengthens this conclusion. It is unarguable that extradition would be a disproportionate interference with anyone’s rights.
Time for the Notice of Renewal extended.
The Appellant is in prison and appeared in person; therefore, the court extended the time for filing the Notice of Renewal.
Hearing proceeded as scheduled.
Despite the late Notice of Renewal and the Appellant’s lack of legal representation, the court proceeded because the Appellant clearly articulated his arguments and understood the proceedings. No reason in the interests of justice existed for an adjournment.
Similar Cases
Jacek Smolarek v Polish Judicial Authority
[2023] EWHC 2860 (Admin)
Emil Sebastian Grabowski v Circuit Court in Swidnica (Poland)
[2023] EWHC 1541 (Admin)
Vojtech Drahonsky v District Court of Usti Nad Laden (Czech Republic)
[2023] EWHC 2858 (Admin)
Nicolae-Filip Uca v Arad Courthouse, Romania
[2023] EWHC 449 (Admin)