Pilch, R (on the application of) v Regional Court In Przemysl

In an extradition appeal based on family life, the adverse effect on a partner and child will not, without more, establish that extradition is disproportionate or incompatible with human rights. The court must consider the circumstances realistically, including whether the family can in principle relocate to the requesting state and the claimant’s awareness of the precarious nature of his position. An appeal may therefore be dismissed where the Article 8 case cannot meet the applicable threshold.

The claimant appealed against District Judge Arbuthnot’s order of 15 June 2012 requiring his extradition to Poland to serve the balance of two custodial sentences, totalling two years and nine months, for grievous bodily harm offences.

He relied on the impact of extradition on his Polish partner, with whom he lived in the United Kingdom, and their baby, born shortly before the hearing. He also sought bail pending removal. The central issue was whether those family circumstances made extradition disproportionate or otherwise contrary to Article 8.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The custodial sentences concerned serious offences, and the claimant accepted that he had come to the United Kingdom to avoid serving the balance of those sentences.
2. The claimant’s Article 8 case relied on the effect of extradition on his partner and their newly born child. The court held that the matters raised were not capable of establishing that returning him to Poland would be disproportionate or would breach his human rights. The partner was Polish and could in principle return to Poland. She had also been aware of the precarious nature of the claimant’s position in the United Kingdom.
3. The court referred to the applicable decision of the Supreme Court, without identifying it by name or citation, and treated it as establishing that the circumstances relied upon could not meet the required threshold.
4. The claimant’s request for bail pending removal was adjourned while the Crown Prosecution Service made inquiries. The court expressed sympathy because he had not yet seen his baby, but made no promise that bail would be granted. The claimant was subsequently granted bail on conditions.

The judgment records an appeal from the order of District Judge Arbuthnot dated 15 June 2012. No citation for the lower decision is stated in the judgment.