Konecny (Appellant) v District Court in Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic (Respondent)

[2019] UKSC 8
UKSC 2017/0200
Konecny (Appellant) v District Court in Brno-Venkov, Czech Republic (Respondent)
On appeal from the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court (England and Wales)
The appellant previously resided in the Czech Republic. He left that country lawfully in June 2007, when he came to the UK. His long-term partner followed shortly thereafter. They have resided in England since September 2007.
On 14 April 2008 a court in the Czech Republic authorised the appellant’s prosecution. He was tried in his absence shortly afterwards. He did not participate in the trial but he was represented by a state-appointed lawyer. He was found to have committed fraud in November 2004, December 2004 and March 2005. Having been convicted of those offences, he was sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment in May 2008. The appellant was unaware of these proceedings and his conviction until his subsequent arrest in 2017. He maintains his innocence and that he communicated with the Czech police in 2005, when he handed over evidence proving his innocence.
On 17 April 2013 the respondent issued a European Arrest Warrant (“EAW”) for the arrest of the appellant. The EAW was not certified until 2 March 2017. The appellant was arrested on the same day. The delay between the issue and certification of the EAW remained unexplained at the appellant’s hearings in the Magistrates’ Court and in the High Court.
In April 2017 the District Judge ordered the appellant’s extradition to the Czech Republic, where he has the right to a retrial. The High Court dismissed his appeal against the extradition order.
The issue is:
Where an individual has been convicted, but that conviction is not final because he has an unequivocal right to a retrial after surrender, is he “accused” pursuant to s.14(a) of the Extradition Act 2003 or “unlawfully at large” pursuant to s.14(b) for the purposes of considering the “passage of time” bar to surrender?
The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses the appeal.