Editing Extradition (section)

=== Right to private and family life ===
In a limited number of cases [[Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights]] has been invoked to stop extradition from proceeding. Article 8 states that everyone has the right to the respect of their private and family life. This is achieved by way of balancing the potential harm to private life against the public interest in upholding the extradition arrangement.<ref name="Fitzgerald" /> While this article is useful as it provide for a prohibition to extradition, the threshold required to meet this prohibition is high.<ref name="Fitzgerald" /> Article 8 does explicitly provide that this right is subject to limits in the interests of national security and public safety, so these limits must be weighed in a balancing of priority against this right. Cases where extradition is sought usually involve serious crimes so while these limits are often justified there have been cases where extradition could not be justified in light of the individual's family life. Cases to date have mostly involved dependant children where the extradition would be counter to the best interests of this child.<ref name ="Fitzgerald" /> In the case of ''FK v. Polish Judicial Authority'' the court held that it would violate article 8 for a mother of five young children to be extradited amidst charges of minor fraud which were committed a number of years ago.<ref>[https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2012-0039-judgment.pdf F-K v Polish Judicial Authority 2012 UKSC 25]</ref> This case is an example of how the gravity of the crime for which extradition was sought was not proportionate to protecting the interests of the individual's family. However the court in this case noted that even in circumstances where extradition is refused a custodial sentence will be given to comply with the principles of [[international comity]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2012-0039-judgment.pdf|title=F-K v Polish Judicial Authority 2012 UKSC 25 para 132}}</ref> In contrast the case of ''HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa'' is an example of when the public interest for allowing extradition outweighed the best interests of the children. In this case both parents were being extradited to Italy for serious drug importation crimes.<ref>HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa 2012 UKSC 25 para 132.[https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2012-0039-judgment.pdf]</ref>
Article 8 does not only address the needs of children, but also all family members, yet the high threshold required to satisfy Article 8 means that the vulnerability of children is the most likely circumstance to meet this threshold. In the case of ''Norris v US (No 2)'' a man sought to argue that if extradited his health would be undermined and it would cause his wife depression.<ref>Norris v US (No 2) [2010] UKSC 9 as discussed in J.R. Spencer Extradition (2013). The European Arrest Warrant and Human Rights, The Cambridge Law Journal 250 at 251.</ref> This claim was rejected by the Court which stated that a successful claim under Article 8 would require "exceptional" circumstances.<ref>J.R. Spencer Extradition (2013). The European Arrest Warrant and Human Rights, The Cambridge Law Journal 250 at 251</ref>

Suicide Risk: Cases where there is risk of the individual committing suicide have also invoked article 8 as the public interest of extraditing must be considered in light of the risk of suicide by the individual if extradited. In the case of ''Jason's v Latvia'' extradition was refused on these grounds, as the crime for which the individual was sought was not enough of a threat to public interest to outweigh the high risk of suicide which had been assessed to exist for the individual if extradited.<ref>Jasons v Latvia  [2004] EWHC 1845.</ref>