Stepkowski, R (on the application of) v Regional Court of Szczecin

In extradition proceedings, a claimed risk to private or family life must be supported by sufficiently specific and current evidence. A general assertion of threats, without detail or evidence that the requested state cannot provide protection, does not establish a breach of Article 3. Extradition will ordinarily cause anxiety and disruption to family life. Article 8 will be engaged, but only exceptional circumstances can make those consequences disproportionate. A settled family life, respectable conduct and contribution to the community do not, without more, cross that high threshold.

The appellant challenged the District Judge’s decision ordering his extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. He relied on Article 3, alleging that he and his family faced threats from gangsters, and on Article 8, relying on his settled family and private life in the United Kingdom. The District Judge rejected the Article 3 case for lack of evidence of a contemporary threat and on the basis that the Polish authorities could provide reasonable protection. He also concluded that the Article 8 consequences were not exceptional or disproportionate. The central issues were whether the District Judge had erred in those conclusions.

1. Article 3. The appellant provided no detail of the alleged threats, no evidence of a contemporary risk, and no reason to displace the District Judge’s conclusion that the Polish authorities could provide reasonable protection. There was therefore no basis for holding the District Judge’s Article 3 decision wrong.
2. Article 8. The court accepted that the appellant was leading a respectable life in England, that his family was settled, and that he contributed to the community. Those circumstances were nevertheless insufficient to meet the very high threshold applicable in extradition cases. Extradition normally disrupts private and family life. Consistently with Norris v United States of America [2010] UKSC 9, only the most extreme or exceptional consequences could make extradition disproportionate.
3. The appeal therefore failed. The District Judge’s decision was upheld in respect of both Article 3 and Article 8.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal from the District Judge’s extradition decision was dismissed.