Dyna, R (on the application of) v Regional Court In Bielsko Biala

Under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003, hardship caused by extradition will not bar extradition unless the passage of time makes extradition unjust or oppressive. Business disruption, financial difficulty and family inconvenience may amount to hardship, but they do not ordinarily satisfy that demanding threshold without a sufficient causal connection to the passage of time. Once a European Arrest Warrant has been certified and is facially valid, the requested court must take it at face value. Possible proceedings in the issuing state concerning suspension, review or quashing of the sentence do not affect the validity or propriety of extradition under the warrant.

The claimant appealed against a decision of the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court, given by District Judge Tubbs on 20 July 2010, ordering his extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. The warrant concerned a Polish sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment, originally suspended and later activated.

On appeal, the claimant argued that extradition was barred by the passage of time under sections 11(1)(c) and 14 of the Extradition Act 2003. He relied on the effect of extradition on his construction business, family and financial commitments. He also argued that the Polish activation order was unlawful or subject to pending review. The central issues were whether the circumstances were oppressive within section 14 and whether the pending Polish proceedings affected extradition.

1. Appeal dismissed. The warrant was facially valid. The challenge based on section 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 was not pursued on appeal.
2. Section 14 imposes a demanding test. The court must determine whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive by reason of the passage of time since the offence or since the requested person became unlawfully at large. Hardship and inconvenience are common consequences of extradition and are insufficient by themselves. The approach in Gomes and Goodyear v Government of Trinidad and Tobago [2009] UKHL 21 at paragraph 31 was applied.
3. The claimant’s extradition would cause substantial difficulty to his construction business. His business partner would have to continue without his assistance, including his greater facility in English when dealing with clients and subcontractors. That evidence established hardship, but not oppression. No sufficient causal link between the passage of time and the alleged hardship had been established. The approach in Merga v Regional Court in Krakow [2008] EWHC 3253 Admin at paragraph 16 was adopted and applied.
4. Once a European Arrest Warrant has been certified by the designated authority, the domestic court must take it at face value, provided it is facially valid. Possible proceedings in Poland which might suspend the sentence again, quash the activation order or substitute another order were matters for the Polish authorities and the claimant’s Polish lawyers. They did not affect the warrant’s validity or the propriety of extradition under it.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the extradition order was dismissed.
• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Tubbs ordered extradition to Poland on 20 July 2010.