Vojtech Drahonsky v District Court of Usti Nad Laden (Czech Republic)
[2023] EWHC 2858 (Admin)
Robert Kozar v District Court in Liberec, Czech Republic
28 August 2024
[2024] EWHC 2226 (Admin)
High Court
A man appealed an order sending him back to Czech Republic for stealing some wine and using a wrong credit card. The judge said it was unfair to send him back because the crime was too small, and he'd already spent more time in jail in the UK than he would likely serve in the Czech Republic. The appeal was successful, and he wasn't sent back.
Key Facts
- •Robert Kozar appeals his extradition order to the Czech Republic for shoplifting two bottles of wine (worth approximately £2.69) and using a found bank card.
- •Kozar admitted to the offenses and has been in UK custody since August 2023.
- •The appeal argues extradition is disproportionate under s 21A(4)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003 and incompatible with Article 8 ECHR (s 21A(4)(a)).
- •Kozar conceded disproportionality before the District Judge but argues it on appeal.
- •The District Judge found against Kozar on the Article 8 challenge, deeming him a fugitive.
- •At the time of the appeal hearing, Kozar had served over six months in custody.
Legal Principles
Test on appeal for extradition orders: The appeal court can only allow an appeal if the district judge should have answered one or more Part 1 questions differently, resulting in the appellant's discharge.
Extradition Act 2003, s 26 and s 27
Human rights bar to extradition: Extradition is barred if it interferes disproportionately with Convention rights (s 21A(4)(a)). Article 8 proportionality assessment considers whether the public interest in extradition outweighs the interference with the extraditee's private and family life.
Extradition Act 2003, s 21A(4)(a); Norris v Government of the USA (No 2); H(H) v Italy; Polish Judicial Authorities v Celinski
Statutory proportionality bar (s 21A(4)(b)): Extradition is barred if disproportionate, considering seriousness of conduct, likely penalty, and possibility of less coercive measures. The Lord Chief Justice's guidance (Criminal Practice Directions 2023) provides examples of trivial offenses where extradition is generally disproportionate, but this is a floor, not a ceiling.
Extradition Act 2003, s 21A(4)(b); Miraszewski v District Court in Torun, Poland
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; extradition order quashed.
Extradition was deemed disproportionate under s 21A(4)(b). The offenses were deemed trivial; Kozar had served a sentence exceeding any likely domestic sentence; and less coercive measures were not considered by the Czech authorities. The court considered domestic sentencing guidelines and the time served by Kozar.
Similar Cases
District Court Košice II, Slovak Republic v Ľubomίr Macko
[2024] EWHC 2564 (Admin)
District Court of Bratislava (Slovakia) v Gabriel Soltes
[2024] EWHC 2754 (Admin)
Monika Fiserova v District Court in Prachatice (Czech Republic)
[2024] EWHC 204 (Admin)
Grzegorz Kozubal v Regional Court In Rzeszów, Poland
[2024] EWHC 3032 (Admin)