Sirko v Court In Katowice

Extradition appeals should be dealt with expeditiously. Grounds relating to family life should ordinarily be raised at the initial hearing. They may be considered on appeal only where there is a good reason or genuinely new evidence. Article 8 requires the rights of the requested person and affected children to be balanced against the important public interest in returning persons to serve sentences or face charges in the requesting state. Extradition will be disproportionate only where the circumstances fall within the exceptional categories identified by the Supreme Court.

The appellant appealed against an extradition order made by Coleman DJ on 28 June. The warrant concerned enforcement of a two-year sentence for an offence relating to football violence. He relied on his employment, family life with a 16-month-old child, absence of previous prosecution in England and payment of tax.

The Administrative Court considered whether the appeal could proceed despite alleged late service and whether the Article 8 matters, not raised below, justified refusing extradition.

1. The court treated extradition hearings as requiring expedition. Although service appeared to have been one day late, the court assumed that it had been made in time to avoid possible injustice.
2. Matters known at the time of the initial hearing should ordinarily be raised there. In the absence of a good reason or evidence that emerged only later, reliance on such matters on appeal will fail. The appellant’s family circumstances existed at the time of the original hearing, and this provided an independent reason for dismissing the appeal.
3. Article 8 was engaged because the appellant had established family life in the United Kingdom. The Article 8 rights of his 16-month-old child were also engaged and had to be considered.
4. Applying the approach taken by the Supreme Court in Norris and HH, the question was whether extradition, viewed against the important principle of returning persons to serve sentences or face charges in their own country, would be disproportionate.
5. The interference was not disproportionate. The appellant’s and the child’s circumstances did not fall within the categories identified by the Supreme Court as capable of making extradition disproportionate. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Coleman DJ ordered extradition on 28 June. The Administrative Court dismissed the appeal.