Michniacki v District Court In Kalisz Poland

In extradition proceedings, generalised fears of assault or ill-treatment in custody do not establish a breach of Articles 2 or 3 where the requested state can provide necessary protection. Article 8 may be considered through proportionality, even where the court assumes a lower threshold than that in Norris. Residence in the United Kingdom with family, together with the consequences of serving a sentence abroad, will not by themselves make extradition disproportionate, particularly where the person knowingly avoided serving the sentence.

The appellant appealed against an order for his extradition to Poland to serve sentences totalling three and a half years for eight offences, principally theft. He relied on a past drug addiction, his alleged role as a police informant, and claimed threats from gang members against himself and his girlfriend.

He also relied on family life in the United Kingdom, where he had lived since 2006 with his girlfriend and son, and made a late asylum claim. The central issues were whether extradition would expose him to violations of Articles 2 or 3, and whether it would be disproportionate under Article 8.

1. Appeal dismissed. The alleged risk of assault or worse in a Polish prison did not establish concerns under Articles 2 or 3. Such allegations were common in extradition cases, and the Polish authorities could provide necessary protection if required.
2. The appellant had raised no specific challenge before the District Judge beyond his fear of what might happen to him. The asserted risks therefore afforded no basis for interfering with the extradition order.
3. The late asylum claim, made shortly before the appeal, was of no material assistance. If it had possessed merit, it should have been made earlier, and it did not influence the court’s decision.
4. As to Article 8, the court considered proportionality on the assumption that a lesser hurdle applied than that associated with Norris, while noting that the Supreme Court was considering the correct approach. The return of the appellant with his girlfriend and son was proportionate. He had lived in the United Kingdom since 2006, but knew that he had at least twelve months of imprisonment to serve and had chosen to avoid it by coming to the United Kingdom.
5. There was no sufficient Article 8 reason to prevent extradition or the return of the family together. Extradition was accordingly proportionate in the circumstances.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal against the District Judge’s order for extradition to Poland dismissed. No citation for the District Judge’s decision was stated in the judgment.