Prus v District Court of Bialystok

Under the Extradition Act 2003, delay will not make extradition unjust or oppressive where the person knowingly leaves the requesting state while proceedings remain outstanding and has not been lulled into security by the authorities. Deliberate absence does not require proof of an intention to evade justice. It is sufficient that the person knowingly decides not to attend further hearings in the light of the available information. An Article 8 objection to extradition requires very strong and exceptional circumstances. Established family life, hardship to relatives and beneficial use of the intervening period will not ordinarily outweigh extradition for serious offences.

The claimant appealed under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order made by Deputy Senior District Judge Wickham in the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 2 February 2007. The order required his extradition to Poland to serve sentences imposed in his absence by the District Court of Bialystok for handling stolen goods, receiving duty-unpaid alcohol and conspiracy relating to illicit spirit production.

He challenged findings that extradition would not be unjust or oppressive because of delay, that he had deliberately absented himself from the Polish proceedings, and that extradition would be compatible with his Article 8 rights. The central issues were whether his conduct and subsequent family and business life made extradition impermissible.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge was entitled to conclude that extradition was not unjust or oppressive by reason of delay. Applying the approach in Kakis v Cyprus [1978] 1 WLR 772, the claimant knew that proceedings remained ongoing when he left Poland. He had knowingly undertaken to notify the court of his English address and had not been lulled into a false sense of security by the Polish authorities.
2. Deliberate absence does not necessarily involve an intention to evade justice. As explained in Wade v Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal of Montpellier [2006] EWHC (Admin) 1902, it requires consideration of the person’s state of mind and a decision taken in light of the material information. The claimant knew that further hearings would occur, chose to return to England and notified the Polish court that it could proceed in his absence. The finding under section 20 was therefore open to the District Judge.
3. Extradition pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and crime. In the context of the statutory extradition scheme, a successful Article 8 objection requires very strong circumstances. Following the approach identified in Launder v UK [1997], the claimant’s established marriage, children, business and family hardship did not constitute exceptional circumstances. His extradition was proportionate and compatible with section 21.

Lord Justice Laws dismissed the appeal. Mr Justice Beatson agreed. No consequential matters arose.

• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Deputy Senior District Judge Wickham ordered extradition on 2 February 2007.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed.