Rzeczkowski v Provincial Court In Warsaw Poland

Interference with family life resulting from extradition will ordinarily be proportionate to the legitimate objective of surrender. Article 8 will justify refusing extradition only where an exceptionally compelling feature, or combination of features, makes the interference disproportionate. The family unit must be considered as a whole, including the effect on innocent family members. Relevant circumstances include the seriousness and age of the offence, the likely period of imprisonment, the possibility of early release, the person’s conduct in avoiding enforcement, and the importance of complying with extradition arrangements.

The claimant appealed against a decision of District Judge Wickham in Westminster Magistrates’ Court upholding a warrant for his return to Poland to serve the balance of a sentence imposed in 1996 for attempted robbery. He had lived in the United Kingdom for about ten years, where he had a Polish wife and two children. The appeal relied on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and challenged the proportionality of returning him to Poland, particularly in light of the age of the offence, the possible remaining sentence, and the effect on his family.

1. Appeal dismissed. The interference with the claimant’s family life did not meet the high threshold required before extradition could be refused on Article 8 grounds.
2. The governing approach was stated in Norris v the United States of America [2010] 2 WLR 572. Extradition will be disproportionate only where an exceptionally compelling feature, or combination of features, is present. The assessment must recognise the importance of giving effect to judicial decisions of states participating in the European arrest warrant system.
3. The impact on the family must be assessed by considering the family unit as a whole. The effect on the claimant’s wife and children was therefore relevant, particularly because the children had grown up in the United Kingdom and had known no other home.
4. The relevant circumstances pointed in both directions. The offence was serious, the claimant had deliberately left Poland while liable to serve the balance of his sentence, and the Polish court might permit early release. Conversely, the offence was approximately fifteen years old, the claimant had already served a substantial period in custody, and his return could cause severe disruption to his family.
5. The case was close to the borderline. The possible remaining imprisonment, the uncertainty about early release, and the family consequences did not, taken together, satisfy the exceptionally high threshold. The District Judge’s experience and exercise of discretion were also matters to which the appellate court was entitled to have regard.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Wickham upheld the arrest warrant for the claimant’s return to Poland to serve the balance of his sentence.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed.