Patrik Bartos v District Court in Kosice (Slovakia)
[2023] EWHC 2902 (Admin)
Mario Bakai v District Court In Dunajska Streda
9 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1768 (Admin)
High Court
A man is being sent back to Slovakia to serve a prison sentence for a credit card fraud. His family in the UK worries about his absence. The judge says he has to go back because he ran away, but the family will still have some support from relatives and social services.
Key Facts
- •Mario Bakai (Appellant), aged 40, is wanted for extradition to Slovakia for a credit card fraud committed in 2013.
- •He was arrested in the UK in 2022 and has been under a 9-hour electronic curfew since his release on bail.
- •His extradition was ordered by a lower court in 2023. This appeal concerns the proportionality of extradition to his Article 8 rights.
- •The Appellant fled Slovakia in 2014, shortly before beginning a 12-month prison sentence, and has built a life in the UK with his wife and son.
- •His wife has significant mobility issues due to a congenital hip dislocation and osteoarthritis, and requires substantial care.
- •Their 9-year-old son has potential dyspraxia and may be severely impacted by his father's absence.
- •Fresh evidence was submitted concerning the availability of support from wider family members.
Legal Principles
The public interest in extradition carries great weight, but this varies according to the nature and seriousness of the crime.
HH v Italy [2012] UKSC 25 [2013] 1 AC 338
Delay since the crime may diminish the weight of the public interest in extradition but may increase the impact on private and family life.
HH v Italy [2012] UKSC 25 [2013] 1 AC 338
In Article 8 extradition cases, a balance must be struck between the public interest and the impact on private and family life.
Various case law mentioned throughout judgment
The best interests of a child are a primary consideration in Article 8 cases.
Various case law mentioned throughout judgment
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed; extradition ordered.
The court found that while the impacts on the Appellant's family would be significant, the strong public interest in extradition outweighed these concerns. The court considered the appellant's fugitivity, the seriousness of the offense, and the availability of support from extended family.