Werner v Circuit Court In Poznan, Poland

Where the foreign court has not yet decided whether an activated sentence should be postponed or deactivated, an English extradition court must determine the appeal on the position presently established. The possibility of a later change in the foreign proceedings does not make the European Arrest Warrant ineffective.

Article 8 requires an assessment of whether surrender is proportionate in the circumstances. Family relationships, health difficulties, rehabilitation and the lapse of time may be relevant, but they do not necessarily outweigh the public interest in giving effect to a valid warrant and maintaining law and order. Surrender may remain necessary and proportionate despite those considerations.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s order for his surrender to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. The warrant sought his return to serve a custodial sentence originally imposed in 2005 and activated in 2007 after alleged non-compliance with probation requirements.

The extradition hearing had proceeded on an uncontested basis, and the claimant no longer pursued a complaint about his legal representation. He relied instead on the possibility that the Polish sentence might be deactivated, and on alleged interference with his Article 8 family life, health and rehabilitation. The central issues were whether the pending Polish proceedings affected the appeal and whether surrender would be disproportionate.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court had to decide the matter on the position as it stood. No decision had been made by the Polish court concerning postponement or deactivation of the sentence, and only that court could determine the issue. The possibility of a future decision could not displace the present extradition order.
2. The claimant’s Article 8 proportionality argument failed. His long-term relationship in England, health problems, period free from further criminal activity and claimed rehabilitation were relevant considerations. They did not establish that surrender was unlawful or disproportionate.
3. Giving effect to the European Arrest Warrant was necessary and proportionate for the maintenance of law and order in a democratic society. The appeal therefore failed on the only grounds pursued.
4. The court refused to delay the claimant’s removal. After the appeal had been dismissed, the applicable statutory timetable and arrangements for any extension were matters for the relevant authorities.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The court dismissed the appeal against the District Judge’s order for surrender. The judgment appealed from was delivered by District Judge Tubbs on 18 January 2011; no citation was stated.