Antonia Omirou v Cypriot Judicial Authority [2025] EWHC 599 (Admin)
Summary
Omirou appealed against an order for her extradition to Cyprus, where she faces allegations of harassment, stalking, data protection breaches, issuing threats, and computer-related forgery. The extradition was ordered by District Judge Minhas on 9th January 2024.
The appellant argued:
(1) the adequacy of the warrant’s details, arguing it was incoherent and defective. The court found the warrant and further information provided sufficient specificity regarding the alleged conduct and charges.
(2) whether a decision to charge or try had been made. The court found that the Cypriot authorities had made a decision to prosecute, as evidenced by the transfer of the file to the Law Service of the Republic.
(3) that extradition would be unjust or oppressive due to the time elapsed since the alleged offences. The court found no culpable delay and no evidence of potential trial injustice.
(4) that extradition was disproportionate given the seriousness of the conduct and likely penalty. The court found a realistic prospect of a custodial sentence if convicted, and extradition was not deemed disproportionate.
(5) that extradition would disproportionately interfere with her right to private and family life. The court balanced the public interest in extradition against the impact on her private life and found no disproportionate interference.
The appeal was dismissed on all grounds, and there was no further impediment to Ms. Omirou’s extradition.
The appellant argued:
(1) the adequacy of the warrant’s details, arguing it was incoherent and defective. The court found the warrant and further information provided sufficient specificity regarding the alleged conduct and charges.
(2) whether a decision to charge or try had been made. The court found that the Cypriot authorities had made a decision to prosecute, as evidenced by the transfer of the file to the Law Service of the Republic.
(3) that extradition would be unjust or oppressive due to the time elapsed since the alleged offences. The court found no culpable delay and no evidence of potential trial injustice.
(4) that extradition was disproportionate given the seriousness of the conduct and likely penalty. The court found a realistic prospect of a custodial sentence if convicted, and extradition was not deemed disproportionate.
(5) that extradition would disproportionately interfere with her right to private and family life. The court balanced the public interest in extradition against the impact on her private life and found no disproportionate interference.
The appeal was dismissed on all grounds, and there was no further impediment to Ms. Omirou’s extradition.