AM v Examining Magistrate's Court No. 4 Murcia, Spain (Rev 2)
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- The Hon Mr Justice Burnett
Areas of Law
- Human Rights Law
- Extradition Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved an appeal against the extradition order of a mother to Spain, which was contested on the grounds of disproportionate interference with her children's article 8 rights. The District Judge initially ruled for extradition, but the appeal considered expert evidence on psychological harm to the children. The appeal succeeded, with Mr. Justice Burnett ruling that extradition would violate the children's rights due to the severity of potential harm from separation.
Judgment
The Hon Mr. Justice Burnett:
This is an appeal against the order of District Judge Bayne of 25 July 2013, ordering the appellant’s extradition to Spain pursuant to a European Arrest Warrant [“EAW”] issued by the judicial authority in Spain on 11 July 2012 and certified by the Serious Organised Crime Agency on 12 October 2012. The EAW is an accusation warrant alleging two offences which relate to money-laundering the proceeds of crime to the tune of about one million euros and involving, in particular, a property in Spain owned by a company of which the appellant was the administrator. The appellant’s husband is in custody in Spain relating to the same matters. He is also wanted in the United States of America which has requested his extradition from Spain. Her father too is an accused in the same proceedings. He is currently on bail in Spain but spent about six months in custody before being released. He lives in Spain with the appellant’s mother. Other family members, including the appellant’s brother and a cousin, are also implicated.
The sole basis upon which extradition was resisted before the District Judge was that to send the appellant to Spain would amount to a disproportionate interference with her family rights and particularly those of her children, guaranteed by article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The District Judge heard evidence from the appellant and from Dr Tom Grange. He is a clinical psychologist experienced in assessing children for the purpose of family proceedings in this jurisdiction. The appellant has three children, J who is just 15, L who is 11 and S who is five. If the appellant is extradited to Spain, J will remain in this country to continue his education. Arrangements would be made for him to stay with family or friends during term time with the expectation that he would join the rest of the family during school holidays. The two younger children would go with the appellant to Spain where all three would live with her parents. In the event that the appellant were denied bail, the children would nonetheless live with their grandparents.
Additional evidence was placed before the District Judge in documentary form.
Having regard to the principles articulated by the Supreme Court in Norris v Government of the United States of America (No 2) [2010] 2 WLR 572 and H(H) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic [2012] 3 WLR 90 , the District Judge concluded that, difficult though extradition wou