The evidence adduced by the Czech Republic had been insufficient for the committing court to conclude that the applicant, who had been convicted of robbery in the Czech Republic, was unlawfully at large. Therefore her application for a writ of habeas corpus succeeded.Application for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. The applicant ('G') was convicted of robbery in the Czech Republic on 6 April 1994 and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. G's sentence was suspended on a number of occasions due to her being pregnant. Her last petition for suspension of her sentence on the ground that she was pregnant was made on 27 May 1999 but was not decided. G subsequently emigrated to the United Kingdom. In 1999 an interstate arrest warrant was issued by the authorities in the Czech Republic. On 31 May 2002 G was arrested and on 29 October 2002 she was committed on bail by Bow Street Magistrates' Court. G sought a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, submitting that the requesting state had failed to adduce any or any sufficient evidence of the applicable provisions of Czech law dealing with sentence deferment and had failed to establish that G had been unlawfully at large. The Czech Republic submitted that it had adduced sufficient evidence to establish that G was unlawfully at large.HELD: There had been insufficient evidence for the committing court to conclude that G was unlawfully at large. The Czech Republic had failed to adduce clear evidence that G was unlawfully at large. In particular the Czech Republic had failed to show why G was liable to imprisonment once her sentence was suspended and that period of suspension had expired. The burden of proof upon the requesting state was that of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.Application allowed.