Rafaelova v District Court Bratislava (Slovakia) [2014] EWHC 4082 (Admin)

Case No CO/4104/2014[2014] EWHC 4082 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Venue Royal Courts of JusticeDate Wednesday, 12 November 2014
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e:
MR JUSTICE OUSELEY

RAFAELOVAAppellantvDISTRICT COURT BRATISLAVA (SLOVAKIA)Respondent
Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes ofWordWave International Ltd (a Merrill Corporation Company)8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2DYTel: 020 7421 4043 Fax: 020 7404 1424E-mail: mlsukclient@merrillcorp.com(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr J Attlee (instructed by Attlee Chung Solicitors) appeared for AppellantMr B Keith (instructed by CPS Extradition) appeared for Respondent
J U D G M E N T
[1]MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: This is an appeal against the decision of District Judge Blake ordering the extradition of the Appellant, a 40 year old female, to Slovakia to serve a sentence of imprisonment in connection with a conviction.[2]The offence in question was described as robbery, although it appears that, in reality, it is a pickpocketing offence carried out in December 2007. She was present at her trial. The Appellant has confirmed her criminal tendencies in her time in the United Kingdom where she has committed similar further offences and has been sentenced to imprisonment.[3]The District Judge considered her family circumstances carefully. No particular issues of hardship were raised. She had come to the country as a fugitive. In the absence of sufficient circumstances suggesting hardship to the family, the District Judge's decision was that there should be extradition.[4]The Respondent's skeleton argument summarises that the offence is relatively serious. It is clearly an organised piece of pickpocketing. The Appellant was a fugitive. There is a substantial time to be served. She has continued to offend and there is no particular family issue.[5]Mr Attlee has sought to come off the record this morning, which I have refused. He is unable, rightly, to advance any ground of appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.