Jonathan Ashby v The County Court in Sibenik, Croatia
[2024] EWHC 2613 (Admin)
Predrag Stojcevic v County Court of Osijek, Croatia
18 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1477 (Admin)
High Court
A man accused of war crimes from 1991 appealed extradition to Croatia. The judge agreed that sending him back after he'd lived in the UK for 25 years, with family and a job, would be unfair, especially as there were long delays in the original case. But the judge didn't believe that he'd be treated unfairly during the trial itself or that the Croatian prisons were unsafe.
Key Facts
- •Predrag Stojcevic appeals against a 2023 extradition order to Croatia based on a 2022 warrant for alleged war crimes (beatings and torture) committed in 1991.
- •The alleged crimes involve four incidents and five victims, charged under Article 120(1) of the Croatian Basic Criminal Code.
- •The appeal raises grounds of unjust/oppressive extradition (Extradition Act 2003, s.14), unjustified interference with Article 8 rights (s. 21A), risk of prejudice at trial due to ethnicity (s. 13(b)), and a potential Article 3 violation due to prison overcrowding.
- •Significant unexplained delays occurred in the Croatian proceedings, particularly from 2010 onwards.
- •Stojcevic has resided in the UK since 1999, with family and established life.
- •The Croatian authorities offered insufficient explanations for the delays.
Legal Principles
Extradition can be deemed unjust or oppressive due to passage of time, considering prejudice to the accused and hardship from changed circumstances. Delay caused by the accused is not generally relevant; the effect of the delay is key.
Kakis v Government of the Republic of Cyprus [1978] 1 WLR 779
For extradition to be considered 'unjust' under s.82 of the Extradition Act 2003 (equivalent to s.14), the passage of time must render a fair trial impossible. 'Oppressive' requires something beyond mere hardship.
Gomes v Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago [2009] UKHL 21
In Article 8 cases, the court assesses proportionality using a balance-sheet approach, weighing the individual's rights against the public interest in extradition.
Polish Judicial Authority v Celinski [2016] 1 WLR 551
On appeal, if the appellate court finds the trial judge's proportionality conclusion wrong, the appeal should be allowed.
Re B (A child) [2013] 1 WLR 1911
There's a presumption that Council of Europe and EU member states comply with Article 3 (prohibition of torture). This presumption is strong and can only be displaced by clear and compelling evidence.
Not explicitly sourced in a case, but established legal principle.
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; extradition warrant discharged.
The appeal succeeded on the Article 8 ground (disproportionate interference with family and personal life in the UK, considering the lengthy unexplained delays in the Croatian proceedings). Other grounds failed.
Section 14 ground (unjust or oppressive) failed.
While the passage of time was significant, it did not render a fair trial impossible or the extradition oppressive, despite Stojcevic's established life in the UK.
Section 13(b) ground (prejudice at trial due to nationality) failed.
Insufficient evidence was presented to demonstrate political motivation or bias in the Croatian proceedings.
Application to amend the appeal to include an Article 3 ground (risk of ill-treatment due to prison overcrowding) refused.
Insufficient evidence was presented to displace the presumption of Croatia's compliance with Article 3 standards, despite reports of overcrowding in some prisons.
Similar Cases
Nicolae-Filip Uca v Arad Courthouse, Romania
[2023] EWHC 449 (Admin)
Lukasz Talaga v Polish Judicial Authority
[2024] EWHC 3015 (Admin)
Vojtech Drahonsky v District Court of Usti Nad Laden (Czech Republic)
[2023] EWHC 2858 (Admin)
Dusko Knezevic v The Government of the Republic of Montenegro
[2024] EWHC 761 (Admin)