QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
B e f o r e :
|- and -|
|MUNICIPAL COURT IN PRAGUE (CZECH REPUBLIC)||Respondent|
MR BEN JOYES (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service) appeared on behalf of the respondent.
Official Court Reporters and Audio Transcribers
5 New Street Square, London, EC4A 3BF
Tel: 020 7831 5627 Fax: 020 7831 7737
Crown Copyright ©
If this Transcript is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting restriction will be breached. This is particularly important in relation to any case involving a sexual offence, where the victim is guaranteed lifetime anonymity (Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992), or where an order has been made in relation to a young person.
This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.
MR JUSTICE HOLMAN:
"There is a long delay between the appellant serving the bulk of his sentence and the issue of the EAW and then a very long delay before the EAW was executed. No doubt the appellant has contributed significantly to the delays but in my view it is at least arguable that the ultimate decision of the DJ was wrong given the delays and the family life built up by the appellant now over very many years."
"He provided the court with his new address in 2007. No-one contacted him. He said, 'When I left in 2010 I knew they would come after me and I wanted to start a new life with [his son] and they have come for me and I am explaining the position right now. I knew the Czech authorities would pursue me.'"
So, it does seem that at any rate since 2010, the appellant, together with his partner of 15 years and their son, now aged 14, have lived here in England.
"The NCA policy at the time was to not certify any EAWs where there was no link to the UK. On 8 October 2018, a UK link was established with Cleveland Police. The EAW was certified on 21 October 2018 and sent to Cleveland police for execution."
"I asked Ms Downs [the advocate then appearing on behalf of the requested person] whether she was prepared to make any concessions as to whether the requested person is a fugitive. She said that she was not prepared to make any concessions and I do not criticise her for that. I do find however that the requested person became a fugitive on 14 November 2007 as the judicial authority asserts and, as such, is not entitled to formally argue the section 14 passage of time bar."
"The requested person is a fugitive from Czech justice and became so on 14 November 2007 which is the day after a warrant was issued for his arrest in the Czech Republic. He left the Czech Republic knowing that his sentence of imprisonment was outstanding."
"The delay since the crimes were committed may both diminish the weight to be attached to the public interest and increase the impact upon private and family life."
"(a) the appropriate judge ought to have decided the question before him at the extradition hearing differently;
(b) if he had decided the question in the way he ought to have done, he would have been required to order the person's discharge."