BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Administrative Court) Decisions >> Olah v District Court of Pilsen (Czech Republic) [2025] EWHC 1137 (Admin) (21 March 2025)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2025/1137.html
Cite as: [2025] EWHC 1137 (Admin)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.

Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWHC 1137 (Admin)
Case No: AC-2022-LON-002346

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT

The Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
(Heard remotely via CVP
21 March 2025

B e f o r e :

MR JUSTICE SWEETING
____________________

ZDENEK OLAH Appellant
-and-
DISTRICT COURT OF PILSEN (CZECH REPUBLIC) Respondent

____________________

Digital Transcription by Epiq Europe Ltd,
Lower Ground, 46 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JE
Web: www.epiqglobal.com/en-gb/ Email: civil@epiqglobal.co.uk
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

THE APPELLANT appeared in Person.
MISS A BOSTOCK (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service, Extradition Unit) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

____________________

HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT APPROVED
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

  1. MR JUSTICE SWEETING: This is an appeal against an order for extradition made by District Judge Heptonstall on 24 August 2022. The extradition is sought by the Czech Republic, pursuant to an accusation warrant issued on 15 October 2021 and certified by the National Crime Agency on 17 December 2021.
  2. The warrant relates to allegations of driving whilst disqualified on two occasions in September 2020. By order of 18 June 2024, the appellant's former representatives, Hodge, Jones and Allen, were permitted to come off the record. The appellant now acts in person.
  3. A number of factual matters were raised by the appellant. The respondent drew my attention to the fact that the district judge in the initial proceedings formed the firm view the appellant was dishonest and unreliable. This assessment extended to his partner's truthfulness, particularly concerning their child's care and the appellant's past and present circumstances, including his immigration status and time spent away from his child. However, I am not concerned with making an assessment of the matters which were before the district judge. My role, as I explained to the appellant, was to consider whether the district judge was wrong in his conclusions as a result of errors in his assessment or the application of the law.
  4. The district judge's decision to order extradition was made on 24 August 2022. The appellant subsequently sought leave to appeal this order. On 9 March 2023, Sir Duncan Ouseley granted permission to appeal on the papers for reasons relating to the appellant's article 8 rights, Brexit uncertainty and his status in this country.
  5. The substantive appeal was initially listed for hearing on 14 June 2023 but was subsequently vacated by a consent order approved on 7 June 2023. The consent order also stayed the appeal proceedings at Westminster Magistrates Court in relation to a subsequent warrant, arrest warrant 2, issued by the same district court in the Czech Republic.
  6. Arrest warrant 2, which was issued on 20 February 2023, is a conviction warrant. It arises from the judgment of the same district court dated 27 February 2020 and concerns methamphetamine drug supply offences for which the appellant had been convicted and sentenced to a suspended term of imprisonment of two years and six months.
  7. The warrant was issued with a view to the appellant's arrest for the purpose of considering the activation of the suspended sentence. The appellant was ordered to be extradited in relation to arrest warrant 2 by District Judge Griffiths on 6 September 2022. Fordham J refused the appellant's application for permission to appeal against that order in case number AC-2023-LON-002661 on 7 December 2024. A renewal notice seeking permission to appeal was not sent to the court within the required timeframe, or at all. Consequently, that case has been closed and it follows that the appellant will, in any event, be extradited in relation to arrest warrant 2.
  8. The appellant's claimed immigration status has evolved. The claim of pre-settled status was made but not substantiated in the proceedings. It was doubted by the district judge. Subsequently, in the arrest warrant 2 proceedings, the appellant acknowledged that he did not have settled status but that his application was pending. This differed from the status of his wife and father, who had pre-settled status. His son's pre-settled status application was also pending.
  9. The test applied by the High Court on appeal against an extradition order is set out in section 27 of the Extradition Act 2003. The High Court may allow an appeal only if the conditions in subsection (3) or (4) are satisfied; subsection (3)(a) states that the appropriate judge ought to have decided the question before him or her at the extradition hearing differently and (3)(b) if she or he had done so, she or he would have been required to order the person's discharge. Subsection (4) relates to issues or evidence not available at the extradition hearing. The court can only allow the appeal if a different decision at first instance would have required the discharge of the extradition order. The focus of the High Court is, therefore, on whether the district judge was wrong in her or his conclusion.
  10. The grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are that the district judge erred in concluding that extradition would not be a disproportionate interference with the appellant's and his son's rights to a private and family life, particularly in light of the immigration uncertainty post-Brexit.
  11. The appellant submitted that the risk of being prohibited from returning to the United Kingdom post-Brexit and the impact of extradition on his child rendered the extradition disproportionate.
  12. The respondent submitted that the district judge's conclusion on proportionality was not wrong. He considered the relevant authorities and the impact of Brexit uncertainty and did not underplay the impact on the appellant's child. The respondent further argues that, as the appellant's extradition has now been ordered in relation to arrest warrant 2, it would be artificial to refuse extradition in relation to arrest warrant 1.
  13. The law in relation to article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the ECHR) in extradition proceedings requires the court to conduct a balancing exercise to determine whether the requested person's rights to private and family life are outweighed by the public interest in his extradition. There is a constant and weighty public interest in extradition which includes ensuring that those accused of crimes are brought to trial and those convicted serve their sentences, the UK honours its treaty obligations and there are no safe havens for fugitives. This public interest carries great weight, but its significance varies depending on the nature and seriousness of the crimes involved. The interference with private and family life must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued by extradition. The public interest in extradition will outweigh article 8 rights unless the consequences of the interference with family life would be exceptionally severe. However, exceptionality is not a strict test and the court must examine the way in which extradition would interfere with family life.
  14. When considering article 8 cases involving children, the child's best interests are the primary consideration This means that they must be considered first although they can be outweighed by countervailing considerations. The court must make a careful and informed evaluation on the particular facts. In this case, the impact of extradition on the appellant 's child was a relevant factor to consider in the article 8 balancing exercise. The district judge considered this impact. Whilst acknowledging the hardship caused to the child, the district judge weighed this against the public interest in the appellant facing trial in the Czech Republic for the alleged offences. The severity of the hardship and the nature of the relationship between the appellant and his son were crucial aspects of the assessment. The district judge did not, in my view, ignore its impact on the appellant's son.
  15. The question of Brexit risk, specifically the uncertainty surrounding the appellant's ability to return to the United Kingdom after extradition, is another significant aspect of the appeal. The issue of Brexit uncertainty, as it was initially understood, concerned the ambiguity surrounding the future immigration status of EU citizens in the United Kingdom following its departure from the European Union. This uncertainty was particularly relevant in extradition cases where the requested person had family ties in the UK because extradition could potentially jeopardise their ability to return and resume their family life after the conclusion of proceedings abroad. It meant that the separation from family in the UK could potentially be longer than the duration of the sentence itself. Sir Duncan Ouseley granted permission to appeal partly because of Brexit uncertainty.
  16. Early case law, such as Antochi v Germany [2020] EWHC 3092 (Admin), established that Brexit uncertainty was a factor that had to be taken into account in the article 8 analysis, both as a subjective factor relating to the anguish experienced by the individual and their family and as a potential objective factor concerning the actual risk of being unable to return. In Piotr Pink v Regional Court in Elblag (Poland) [2021] EWHC 1238 (Admin) Chamberlain J held that the potential inability to be readmitted to the United Kingdom after completing a sentence abroad, is a consequence of the individual's criminal convictions, and the change to the Immigration Rules due to Brexit rather than a direct consequence of extradition itself. It was noted that the Home Office's attitude to applications by individuals with criminal convictions in EU member states might not be affected by whether the applicant had been extradited or not.
  17. The legal landscape has evolved since the UK's formal withdrawal from the EU and the implementation of the EU settlement scheme. As noted in Gurskis v Latvia [2022] EWHC 1305 (Admin), the initial uncertainty regarding the Immigration Rules applicable to EU nationals has now been largely resolved. In summary, whilst the initial period following the Brexit Referendum was characterised by uncertainty regarding immigration status, the implementation of the EU settlement scheme has provided a framework for EU citizens and their families to secure their right to remain in the UK.
  18. In the appellant's case, despite not having settled status himself, there appears to be a recognised route for him to apply to return to the United Kingdom as a family member of those with pre-settled status. Consequently, the argument based on general Brexit uncertainty creating an insurmountable barrier to the appellant's return is less compelling in the current context given the established pathways within the Immigration Rules for family members of EU citizens with pre- or settled status.
  19. The focus now shifts to the specific circumstances of his application and whether he meets the requirements of the relevant Immigration Rules, which is a matter for the Home Office and potentially the Immigration Tribunal rather than a bar to extradition in principle based on general Brexit uncertainty.
  20. The district judge in the present case referred to and considered all of the relevant authorities cited by the appellant in relation to Brexit uncertainty and the circumstances of the appellant's case in that context. He did not, in my view, fall into any error in the assessment that he carried out. Further, as the appellant's extradition has now been ordered in relation to the subsequent warrant, arrest warrant 2, by District Judge Griffiths on 6 September 2022, it would be wholly artificial to refuse extradition on the earlier warrant by reference to an article 8 impact rendered academic by the later order (see Petr Dimita v Czech Republic [2019] EWHC 88 (Admin) at paragraph 33).
  21. The concerns raised in this appeal regarding the impact of extradition on family life and the uncertainty of return post-Brexit have been overtaken by events. The article 8 concerns raised by the appellant, even if they happened at the time of the district judge's decision, are now academic in the context of the later extradition order, the clarification of his status, the route he has to return, as well as the more recent case law. In any event, I  do not, in fact, consider the district judge's decision was wrong at the time it was made. I  therefore, refuse this appeal.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010