Solicitor Noam Almaz comments on successful verdict for his client in ground-breaking extradition case

On Friday 7 March, the High Court handed down judgment in Jirik v District Court of Prague, Czech Republic [2025] EWHC 506 (Admin), with Noam Almaz of Stokoe Partnership Solicitors (instructing Emilie Pottle and Sebastian Bates of Temple Garden Chambers) securing a successful outcome for his client who was discharged.

Speaking on the judgment, Noam commented: “This is an extremely important decision since it is one of the first authorities to apply the principles established by the Supreme Court in Bertino v Public Prosecutor’s Office, Italy in March 2024 – namely that a ‘manifest lack of diligence’ alone is not necessarily enough to establish deliberate absence.”

Background

In November 2020, Stokoe Partnership Solicitor’s client, J, was convicted of attempted theft in the Czech Republic and sentenced to a suspended sentence. The trial took place in J’s absence, J having left for the UK in June 2019. J had returned to the Czech Republic in September 2019 when he was arrested, questioned and issued with a “resolution on the commencement of criminal prosecution”.

Before returning to the UK, J provided the Czech authorities with his address in the UK, his telephone number and an email address. The Czech authorities sought to contact J in the UK but were not successful. An arrest warrant was issued seeking J’s return to determine whether his suspended sentence should be activated.

J appeared unrepresented at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. The District Judge did not find J to be a fugitive but did conclude that he was deliberately absent from his trial because he had displayed “a manifest lack of diligence” given that he knew he was a suspect. Extradition was ordered and J contacted Stokoe Partnership Solicitors who acted on appeal. Stokoe Partnership Solicitors lodged an appeal identifying grounds of challenge, including that the judge had been wrong to find that J had deliberately absented himself from his trial in the Czech Republic.

Judgment

Emilie Pottle and Sebastian Bates of Temple Garden Chambers were instructed and successfully argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish that J’s conduct amounted to an unequivocal waiver of his right to be present at his trial. There was also insufficient evidence to show that J had been warned that he could be tried and convicted in his absence. As a result, the decision that he was deliberately absent was wrong. J was discharged.

A link to the High Court’s judgment can be found here.