Three recent cases before the UK Supreme Court have considered the issue of whether the interests of children and family life should prevent extradition for criminal offences. The issue arose in three cases in the UK.
The first two cases of HH and PH involved requests for extradition by the Italian courts for two individuals convicted of drug trafficking offences. The third case, FK, involved an extradition request by a Polish court for an individual accused of dishonesty offences. Each of the appellants had young children who would be severely adversely affected by the removal of their parents from the UK. The question was to what extent this interference with their Article 8 rights under the European Convention on Human Rights could affect extradition proceedings. The court held that the determining factor in this situation is the seriousness of the offence. In the case of HH and PH, the crime was of such gravity that the public interest in extradition outweighed the interests of the children involved. However in the case of FK, as the crime in question was relatively minor the public interest in extradition did not outweigh the children's interests.
Click here to read the combined judgment for the three cases.
Click here to read a post on the cases in the UK Human Rights blog.
Article 8 rights were also the issue in the RMC and FJ cases. This case considered the lawfulness of detention of photographs by the police. The English High Court first considered whether the retention of photographs by the police was an interference with Article 8. The court considered the case of S v. United Kingdom, in which the European Court of Human Rights had held that the indiscriminate retention of DNA samples and fingerprints violated the right to respect for private life. The court in the present case therefore held that the retention of photographs also violated an individual’s right to respect for private life. The question therefore was whether such interference could be justified on one of the available grounds. The court noted three specific factors in holding that the policy did indeed interfere with Article 8 private life rights; the lack of distinction between those convicted of an offence and those acquitted or not charged, the length of retention and the effects of retention on minors.
Click here to read a post in the UK Human Rights blog on the case.
Click here to read the judgment.