Cichowska, R (on the application of) v The Circuit Court In Poznan Poland

On an appeal under the Extradition Act 2003, interference with family life caused by extradition will breach Article 8 only where its consequences are exceptionally serious and unusually compelling when balanced against the public interest in extradition. The inquiry is fact-specific. The fact that a child may suffer serious emotional consequences, or may require care if the parent is extradited, does not by itself make extradition disproportionate. The seriousness of the alleged offending remains material. The exceptional category is particularly unlikely to arise where the offences are not relatively trivial.

The claimant appealed against District Judge Evans's order for her extradition to Poland to serve a sentence for five burglary offences. She relied on Article 8, asserting that extradition would have a disproportionate effect on her eight-year-old son, J. The District Judge accepted that J had behavioural and emotional difficulties and might enter care, but ordered extradition.

Before the High Court, a new clinical psychologist's report described J's vulnerabilities, his progress in the United Kingdom, and the likely deterioration following separation from his mother. The central issue was whether that further evidence satisfied section 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 and established that extradition would be incompatible with Article 8.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The new psychological report did not establish that the District Judge would necessarily have reached a different conclusion or that discharge was required under section 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003.
2. Under section 21 of the Act, extradition must be refused if it would be incompatible with Convention rights. Applying Norris v the Government of the United States of America (No. 2) [2010] UKSC at 9; [2010] 2 WLR 572, the consequences of interference with family life must be exceptionally serious before they outweigh the public interest in giving effect to an extradition request. The assessment is fact-specific and requires consideration of unusually or exceptionally compelling features.
3. The court accepted that J had experienced significant disruption, had made substantial progress, and was likely to regress if separated from his mother. It also accepted that his care arrangements in the United Kingdom were seriously limited. Those matters did not, however, place the case within the exceptional category.
4. The offences included one domestic burglary and four commercial burglaries. They were not relatively trivial. The particularly compelling combination identified in Norris, involving severe family suffering and relatively minor offending, therefore did not arise.
5. Howes & Shanks v Edinburgh Sheriff Court [2008] WL 2033440, Reid v Her Majesty's Advocate [2009] WL 6527, and A v Croatia [2010] EWHC 918 (Admin) were factually distinguishable, but supported the conclusion that separation of a child from an extradited parent does not ordinarily make extradition disproportionate.
6. The court had given the case anxious scrutiny but concluded that it was not exceptional. The appeal was dismissed.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — The appeal against District Judge Evans's extradition order of 18 May 2010 was dismissed. The court applied section 27(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 and upheld the conclusion that extradition was compatible with Article 8.
2. City of Westminster Magistrates' Court — District Judge Evans ordered extradition to Poland.