Marcinkowski v District Court in Plock

In an extradition appeal, an unparticularised asylum claim will not ordinarily justify adjourning the appeal, particularly where no supporting evidence has been produced. The court should generally determine the appeal and allow any properly raised asylum issue to be dealt with through the appropriate process.

Article 8 is engaged only where extradition would have consequences for family life that are exceptionally severe. The assessment is fact-sensitive, but ordinary separation of a parent from a partner and young child, including where the remaining parent can provide care, will not normally meet that threshold.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against an order for his extradition to Poland to serve custodial sentences for theft and attempted thefts.

He relied on an unparticularised Article 8 claim and stated that he had made an asylum claim under section 39. No European arrest warrant, lower-court judgment, evidence of the Article 8 case, or evidence of the asylum claim had been produced. The issues were whether the appeal should be adjourned and whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with family life.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court rejected the request to adjourn the appeal because the alleged asylum claim was unsupported by evidence. The appropriate course was to hear the appeal, with any asylum claim being considered separately and the extradition order suspended until that process was dealt with.
2. The approach was consistent with Kozlowski v District Court of Torun Poland [2012] EHWC 1706 (Admin). There should be no general practice of granting adjournments in extradition cases involving Council of Europe or European Union countries. An adjournment remained possible where the circumstances justified it, but material indicating a proper basis for an asylum claim should ordinarily have emerged at an early stage.
3. As to Article 8, the relevant question was whether the consequences of interference with family life would be exceptionally severe, applying HH v Italy [2012] UKSC 25. Each case had to be assessed on its facts.
4. The appellant’s circumstances were ordinary rather than exceptional. His partner could care for their three-year-old child, and the case fell within the usual category in which one parent may be extradited following a proper application. The evidence came nowhere near establishing exceptionally severe consequences.

1. Magistrates' Court: the appellant was arrested and brought before the court. He contested extradition but raised no positive case against it.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): Deputy Senior District Judge Wickham ordered extradition on 26 March 2012. The High Court dismissed the appeal on 29 June 2012.