Lagowski v Regional Court In Radom Poland

In extradition proceedings, interference with family life under Article 8 will ordinarily be inherent in extradition. The interference is disproportionate only where there are quite exceptionally compelling features. A court may refuse an adjournment where the request rests on unsupported or nebulous assertions about foreign proceedings and no appropriate documents are before it. A person who has evaded execution of a sentence cannot ordinarily rely on the resulting passage of time, absent the most exceptional circumstances.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order for his extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. He had been convicted of thefts committed in 1998 and had failed to surrender after a suspended sentence was activated.

Before the Administrative Court he sought an adjournment pending further proceedings and applications in Poland. He also relied on family life in the United Kingdom and fear of harm in Polish custody. The central issues were whether the appeal should be adjourned and whether extradition was barred by delay or disproportionate interference with Article 8 rights.

1. Appeal dismissed. There was no proper basis for intervention in the extradition order.
2. The court refused to adjourn. The claimant supplied no reliable material showing that the Polish requesting authority or the Westminster Magistrates’ Court had failed to provide appropriate documents. Assertions that proceedings in Poland were continuing were too nebulous to justify delay.
3. The claimant’s written ground under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003 was not pursued and was, on the available evidence, hopeless. The court agreed with the District Judge’s assessment of the effect of delay, namely that a person who had evaded execution of sentence would ordinarily have to accept the consequences of the resulting passage of time, save in the most exceptional circumstances.
4. As to Article 8, the court agreed that the principles in Norris v the United States [2010] applied. Interference with Article 8 rights is inherent in extradition, and only quite exceptionally compelling features can make that interference disproportionate to the purpose served by extradition. The claimant’s family life, four years’ residence, home and engagement in the United Kingdom did not meet that threshold.
5. The additional fear of being killed in Polish custody did not establish a basis for allowing the appeal. The appeal was dismissed.

High Court (Administrative Court): appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 dismissed, affirming the extradition order made by Deputy Senior District Judge Wickham on 27 August 2010.