M.K. v Ukraine: Extradition to Ukraine Discharged by Chief Magistrate

On 24 August 2026, the Chief Magistrate of England and Wales discharged M.K., a Ukrainian national whose extradition was sought by the Government of Ukraine.

The case was heard at Westminster Magistrates' Court and concerned a Part 2 extradition request under the Extradition Act 2003. Following a contested extradition hearing, the Court concluded that extradition would amount to a disproportionate interference with M.K.'s right to respect for his private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

George Hepburne-Scott represented M.K., led by David Perry KC of 6KBW College Hill and instructed by Magdalena Motyl of Bark & Co Solicitors.

Extradition request from Ukraine

The Government of Ukraine sought M.K.'s extradition to stand trial in relation to five alleged offences. The allegations included extortion, vehicle theft and unlawful possession of firearms.

Ukraine is a designated Part 2 territory for the purposes of the Extradition Act 2003. The extradition proceedings were therefore governed by Part 2 of the Act.

One of the five alleged offences was separately found not to constitute an extradition offence under section 137 of the Extradition Act 2003 because it was non-imprisonable under Ukrainian law.

Human rights arguments against extradition to Ukraine

The defence raised a number of grounds concerning the compatibility of extradition with M.K.'s Convention rights.

These included the consequences of the continuing international armed conflict in Ukraine; Articles 2 and 3 ECHR in relation to the risk to life, prison conditions and treatment in detention; Article 6 ECHR and the right to a fair trial; and Article 8 ECHR concerning M.K.'s private and family life.

The case therefore required the Court to consider the operation of the Extradition Act 2003 against the unusual background of an active international armed conflict.

The Chief Magistrate observed that there is no rule of domestic or Convention law preventing extradition simply because the requesting state is involved in an international armed conflict. Instead, the existence of the conflict forms part of the factual circumstances relevant to the human rights assessment under section 87 of the Extradition Act 2003.

Articles 2, 3 and 6 ECHR

The Court ultimately rejected the challenges based upon Articles 2, 3 and 6 ECHR.

In particular, the Chief Magistrate accepted the assurances provided by Ukraine and found that they were clear, specific and reliable. The evidence did not establish the necessary real risk of death, inhuman or degrading treatment, or a flagrant denial of justice if M.K. were extradited.

The case was instead determined by the separate Article 8 proportionality assessment.

Article 8 ECHR and extradition

Article 8 protects the right to respect for private and family life.

In extradition proceedings, the public interest in honouring the United Kingdom's extradition obligations carries substantial weight. The fact that extradition will cause disruption to an individual's private or family life will not ordinarily be sufficient to prevent extradition.

The circumstances of M.K.'s case were, however, exceptional.

Of particular importance was the Court's finding that M.K. was not a fugitive from justice.

M.K. had left Ukraine lawfully in February 2022, before the full-scale Russian invasion and before he knew of the criminal proceedings against him. The Court did not find that his departure had been motivated by a desire to evade criminal justice.

M.K.'s private and family life in the United Kingdom

M.K. subsequently entered the United Kingdom lawfully under the Homes for Ukraine/Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme.

He lived openly under his own identity and worked continuously and lawfully until his arrest in July 2025. He had also established a settled private and family life in the United Kingdom with his long-term partner.

These circumstances were significant to the Article 8 balancing exercise.

The Court found that the public interest in extradition remained significant, particularly given the seriousness of the allegations. However, the absence of deliberate flight from justice materially reduced the weight to be placed on that public interest in the particular circumstances of the case.

Chief Magistrate orders discharge

Considering the circumstances cumulatively, the Chief Magistrate concluded that this was one of the rare and exceptional cases in which the impact upon private and family life outweighed the public interest in extradition.

The Court therefore held that extradition would constitute a disproportionate interference with M.K.'s Article 8 rights.

The Article 8 challenge under section 87 of the Extradition Act 2003 succeeded and M.K. was discharged pursuant to section 87(2).

Significance for extradition to Ukraine

The decision illustrates the highly fact-sensitive nature of human rights challenges in extradition proceedings.

Importantly, the Court did not hold that the ongoing war prevents extradition to Ukraine generally. The challenges under Articles 2, 3 and 6 ECHR were rejected.

Instead, the successful challenge arose from the particular circumstances of M.K.'s private and family life and the proportionality assessment required under Article 8.

The Court's finding that M.K. had not fled Ukraine to evade justice was particularly significant. He had left lawfully before becoming aware of the criminal proceedings, subsequently lived openly and lawfully in the United Kingdom, maintained continuous employment and established substantial private and family life here.

The case demonstrates that even where serious allegations give rise to a substantial public interest in extradition, the Court must undertake an individual assessment of all relevant circumstances when determining proportionality under section 87 of the Extradition Act 2003.

Representation

M.K. was represented by George Hepburne-Scott of Church Court Chambers, led by David Perry KC of 6KBW College Hill and instructed by Magdalena Motyl of Bark & Co Solicitors.

The full extradition hearing took place at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 16 and 17 July 2026. Judgment was given by Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring, Chief Magistrate of England and Wales, on 24 August 2026.