Key Facts
- •Matei Botka appealed his extradition to Romania for driving and drug offences.
- •He was sentenced to a total of 2 years and 5 months imprisonment in absentia.
- •The offences occurred between 2015 and 2018, with the combined sentence becoming final in June 2022.
- •Botka had lived in the UK since July 2018, working part-time and studying at university.
- •The appeal focused on whether extradition would disproportionately infringe his Article 8 ECHR rights (right to private and family life).
- •The District Judge found extradition proportionate; The High Court overturned this decision.
Legal Principles
Article 8 ECHR (right to private and family life) must be balanced against the public interest in extradition.
H(H) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic [2013] 1 AC 338
Extradition appeals focus on whether the judge's decision was 'wrong', not a re-hearing of evidence.
Love v Government of the United States of America [2018] 1 WLR 2889
Long, unexplained delays can weigh heavily against extradition, even if the appellant is not a fugitive.
Stryjecki v Polish Judicial Authority [2016] EWHC 3309 (Admin), Done v Romanian Judicial Authority [2020] EWHC 3192 (Admin)
Passage of time is a relevant factor in the Article 8 balancing exercise, capable of affecting the weight given to the public interest in extradition.
Konecny v District Court in Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic [2019] 1 WLR 1586
The consequences of interference with Article 8 rights must be 'exceptionally serious' before extradition is disproportionate.
Celinski (cited in section 40)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; Order for extradition quashed.
The High Court found the District Judge had wrongly weighed the factors in the Article 8 balancing exercise, particularly the significant delays in proceedings, Botka's young age at the time of the offences, and the impact of extradition on his established life in the UK.