If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?

Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.

Thank you very much for your support!

BAILII [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 >> Campbell v Deputy Public Prosecutors Office in Bordeaux France [2015] EWCA Admin 1024 (04 March 2015)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/1024.html
Cite as: [2015] EWCA Admin 1024

[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWCA Admin 1024


Royal Courts of Justice
London WC2A 2LL
4 March 2015

B e f o r e :

(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)


CAMPBELL Appellant


Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of
WordWave International Ltd (a Merrill Corporation Company)
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2DY
Tel: 020 7421 4043 Fax: 020 7404 1424
E-mail: mlsukclient@merrillcorp.com
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)


Miss A Greenwood (instructed by HP Gower) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Ms F Iveson (instructed by CPS Extradition Unit) appeared on behalf of the Respondent



Crown Copyright ©

  2. introduction
  3. Stephen Campbell appeals against the decision of District Judge Zani made on 6 January 2015 at the Westminster Magistrates' Court ordering his extradition to France on a conviction European Arrest Warrant for an offence of money laundering issued by the Deputy Prosecutor's Office in Bordeaux on 28 April 2014 and certified in this country by the National Crime Agency on 10 September 2014.
  4. The Appellant had been sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment with one year suspended, having been originally arrested on 22 May 2009. The Appellant appealed his sentence, which was subsequently reduced to 3 years' imprisonment on 20 February 2014 and 2 years remains to be served. He spent 12 months on remand in France and was allowed to return to the United Kingdom on 1 December 2010.
  5. submissions
  6. The grounds of appeal are that the Appellant's extradition would be incompatible with his Convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 and in particular under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
  7. The case for the Appellant is that the District Judge ought to have decided the case differently when proper regard had been made to his family and personal circumstances and to the disproportionate impact extradition would have on him.
  8. The case for the Respondent was the District Judge was correct to order extradition in this case because the public interest is greater than the interference with the Appellant's private and family life in the light of the very serious nature of the offences, the limited change in the Appellant's life in the United Kingdom since they were committed and the limited extent to which extradition would interfere with his family and private life given that he has no dependents and no substantial financial commitments.
  9. The conviction warrant related to three offences which were charged by the French judicial authority, the first being the international laundering of the proceeds of drug trafficking, the second was the participation in a criminal association for the purpose of committing the offence of unlawful import/export and transportation of drugs, and third, the undeclared transfer from or towards another state of some securities or shares of stock amounting to at least £10,000.
  10. The offences relate to events which occurred between 2007 and the Appellant's arrest on 22 May 2009 when the Appellant drove about 20 times between London and various European cities conveying between 200,000 and 600,000 Euros. The money was then used to purchase narcotic drugs. The Appellant was paid £3,000 per trip. On arrest, 540,210 Euros in cash was found in his car.
  11. The framework list on the EAW was ticked for "illicit trading in and trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances", as well for "laundering of the proceeds of crime".
  12. The Appellant's proof of evidence which was before the District Judge shows that he is 38 and that he lives in Radlett. He has a foster daughter called Kim who he came to be fostered by him when she was 15 and her mother died, which was in 2005. So that means Kim is around 25. She lived with the Appellant between 2006 and 2009. The Appellant lost his job on his arrest, but he subsequently obtained another job as an IT administrator.
  13. The Appellant does not wish to return to France as his life is in the United Kingdom and he has no community ties to France. Reference was made to the long period when he was on bail prior to the case coming up.
  14. The Decision of the District Judge
  15. The District Judge in his detailed decision took into account a number of impressive character references from individuals who had known the Appellant for some time and they spoke highly of him. The District Judge found there had been no inordinate delay.
  16. He referred, as I have been referred, to a letter from the Appellant's French lawyer, Madam Sylvie Reulet, in which she stated that he could be granted libération conditionnelle within 3 to 6 months of being returned to France. It is not put higher than the fact that he could be granted this relief rather than that he would be granted it .
  17. The District Judge concluded that there would be some disruption to the Appellant's current settled life if he would be returned to France. As a result, it could be said that he would suffer some degree of hardship, but the District Judge explained the law was clear that this level of hardship alone is insufficient to prevent extradition taking place. He said that he was entirely satisfied to the necessary standard there were no bars to his extradition request and it would not be incompatible with the Appellant's Article 8 rights.
  18. discussion
  19. The basic principles on the relevance of Article 8 rights in extradition cases have been explained by the Supreme Court in the cases of Norris v Government of the United States of America Number 2 [2010] UKSC 9 and HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25.
  20. It is noteworthy that in paragraph 8 Baroness Hale sets out some of the general principles that have to be applied in it. As no part of the argument has really centred on what those mean, it is unnecessary to set these well-known principles out.
  21. In support of the contention that the appeal should be allowed, the point is made by Miss Greenwood that it would be wrong to order his extradition bearing in mind that apart from these matters he has no previous convictions, that he is in full time employment, that he is in privately rented accommodation, that he is financially stable with strong community ties and that he has an extended family life in the United Kingdom.
  22. To my mind, all this has to be considered against the fact that there is a constant and weighty public interest in extradition proceedings so that a convicted person should be returned to serve his sentence and that the United Kingdom should honour its treaty obligations to other countries and, in particular, that there should be no safe haven for suspects or people who are convicted and flee.
  23. Another point that is made by Ms Iveson is that there is no evidence of members of the Appellant's family being dependent on him or that he has a mortgage. She stresses the seriousness of the offence and Miss Greenwood quite properly does not seek to argue otherwise.
  24. There does not appear to be any certainty that he will get libération conditionnelle.
  25. At the end of the day, it appears, it seems to me, that bearing in mind all these factors and including the very serious nature of these offences and the period of time remaining to be served, the Appellant's private and family life does not outweigh the public interest and extradition.
  26. Applying the appropriate tests and notwithstanding the able submissions by Miss Greenwood both orally and in writing, this appeal must be dismissed.
  27. Thank you very much.
  28. MISS GREENWOOD: My Lord, can I ask? My client is legally aided.
  30. MISS GREENWOOD: My client is legally aided.
  32. MISS GREENWOOD: I believe I am to ask for costs to be assessed in the usual terms, but I am not sure if that is applicable.
  33. SIR STEPHEN SILBER: I never know if this is required. I am looking round at other counsel, all of whom are looking away when I ask them about it. Does anybody know?
  34. I am very keen that you do get paid because you have done a good job --
  35. MISS GREENWOOD: Thank you, my Lord.
  36. SIR STEPHEN SILBER: -- but I am not quite sure what to order.
  37. MS IVESON: My Lord, it is my understanding that such an order does not need to be made anymore.
  38. SIR STEPHEN SILBER: Sorry, somebody behind you has something to say.
  39. MS IVESON: I do not think if ever needed to be made in the first place. It was just something that became part of a practice, but I do not believe it is needed in order for costs to be assessed.
  40. SIR STEPHEN SILBER: What I am going to say is I am not going to make it because I am told it is not needed. If it is needed, I would certainly order it. That will be on the transcript. You should not have any problems on that.
  41. MISS GREENWOOD: I am very grateful.
  42. SIR STEPHEN SILBER: If there are problems, they can always come back to me and I will ensure that you get something.
  43. MISS GREENWOOD: Thank you, my Lord.

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/1024.html