Kowalski, R (on the application of) v District Court In Krakow, Poland

Return under a European Arrest Warrant may be refused on human-rights grounds, including Article 8, but Article 8 requires a very compelling case before return is prevented. The public interest in preventing crime and maintaining compliance with international obligations is substantial. The distress, illness and financial difficulties that imprisonment may cause to a prisoner’s family will ordinarily be insufficient, since such consequences commonly follow serious offending. Family hardship must therefore be assessed in the context of the offence, the sentence and the public interest in extradition.

The claimant appealed against a decision of Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordering his removal to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. He had been convicted in Poland of drug offences and sentenced on two occasions to terms of imprisonment. He had failed to surrender to begin serving those sentences and had travelled to the United Kingdom.

He relied on Article 8, contending that return would seriously affect his Polish fiancée, who suffered from depression, and would prevent them from addressing substantial debts incurred in the United Kingdom. The central issue was whether those circumstances made return an unjustifiable interference with private and family life.

1. Appeal dismissed. The absence of any challenge to the warrant meant that the appeal turned on Article 8.
2. An interference with private and family life may justify refusal to return a person under a European Arrest Warrant. However, Article 8 permits interference for the prevention of disorder or crime, and the importance of complying with international obligations must be maintained. A very compelling case is required before return is refused.
3. The claimant’s fiancée’s depression, the likely effect of imprisonment on her, and the couple’s financial difficulties did not meet that threshold. Persons who commit offences sufficiently serious to attract imprisonment will almost inevitably cause difficulties for family and friends. Those consequences, without more, do not justify non-return.
4. The court noted that serving the sentence in the United Kingdom did not appear to be available in a European Arrest Warrant case, although the possibility of any applicable jurisdiction could be checked urgently. Bail was extended on the existing terms pending notification of the return arrangements.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Wickham ordered removal to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed.