Irwinski v Regional Court In Bydgoszcz Poland

Article 8 does not make extradition disproportionate merely because the defendant’s partner and children will suffer from the separation. The court must assess the particular interference with private and family life against the public interest in enforcing the sentence. Extradition remains proportionate where the defendant knowingly failed to serve a custodial sentence when required and the resulting family difficulties do not reach the necessary level of severity.

The claimant appealed against the decision of Senior District Judge Wickham dated 16 March 2011 ordering his extradition to Poland to serve the remaining part of an 18-month sentence for commercial burglaries. Proceedings in Poland concerning a further deferral of the sentence had concluded unfavourably. The sole issue before the Administrative Court was whether extradition would breach the claimant’s rights to private and family life under Article 8, having regard to his partner, their young child and the practical consequences of his removal.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The claimant’s extradition to Poland was not disproportionate.
2. The court took into account the claimant’s private and family life in the United Kingdom, including his relationship with his partner, his responsibility for their young child, and the absence of an obvious source of further support for them if he were extradited.
3. Family members would inevitably suffer when a person responsible for their welfare is extradited. That consequence, and the availability or otherwise of possible alternative care arrangements, did not by itself make extradition disproportionate.
4. The interference did not reach the necessary level of severity. A significant consideration was that the claimant had chosen not to serve the sentence when he was due to do so and therefore had to serve it later, in less favourable personal circumstances. The consequences of that choice did not make enforcement of the sentence disproportionate.
5. The claimant’s alcohol-related difficulties were taken into account, but his subsequent decision to stop drinking did not alter the proportionality assessment. The extradition order therefore stood.

Senior District Judge: On 16 March 2011, Senior District Judge Wickham made the decision leading to the appeal. The judgment does not give a citation for that decision.

High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed.