On 14 October 2024, Mr Justice Murray dismissed a Slovakian judicial authority’s appeal against discharge from an arrest warrant issued by it. The judicial authority had contended that the district judge was wrong to find that the penalty for the alleged offending, a theft of €24,655, was likely to be a suspended sentence and was therefore “non-custodial” for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003.
As a preliminary point, the Court held that section 289 of the Sentencing Act 2020 is not relevant to the analysis. The fact that a suspended sentence imposed by the Courts of England & Wales is treated under the Sentencing Act 2020 as a custodial sentence for purposes of all enactments does not and cannot, of itself, change the proportionality analysis under section 21A of the Extradition Act 2003.
The district judge was entitled to determine whether the sentence could be suspended based on the evidence and information before him. It was open to him to conclude that it was likely that a suspended sentence would be passed, notwithstanding inter alia the respondent’s previous offending history and the amount allegedly stolen. Having regard to the approach of Lord Neuberger in Re B (A child) (Care proceedings: threshold criteria) [2013] UKSC 33 to appellate consideration of a judge’s evaluative assessment on a question of proportionality, the district judge’s decision was not one that the Court could say was right or wrong.
The Court therefore dismissed the Slovakian judicial authority’s appeal.
Joshua Kern appeared for the respondent at first instance and on appeal. Josh was instructed by Sanjiv Bisnauthsing of Kayders Solicitors.
View the full judgment here
