Elster, R (on the application of) v Regional Court In Nowy Sacz, Poland

In extradition proceedings, the adverse effect of returning a person to serve a sentence on a spouse, children or the wider family will not normally make the return disproportionate. The Administrative Court must follow the applicable Supreme Court authority on that issue. Personal circumstances, including improved family welfare in the United Kingdom and the effect of separation, may be sympathetic but will not ordinarily outweigh the obligation to return a person to serve a sentence imposed for serious criminal offences. Complaints about prison conditions will not succeed where the governing authorities provide no basis for relief.

The claimant appealed against a district judge’s order requiring his return to Poland to serve the balance of sentences imposed for three offences, including robbery. The European arrest warrant did not make clear whether the sentences would be served consecutively or concurrently, but the claimant accepted that at least one year and eight months remained to be served for the robbery.

He had originally been released after serving part of the sentences and had travelled to the United Kingdom because of unemployment and his desire to support his children and former wife. He argued that returning him would adversely affect his teenage children, who were living with him in the United Kingdom and had improved significantly. He also raised Polish prison conditions. The central issue was whether those matters made his return disproportionate.

1. Appeal dismissed. The claimant was required to return to Poland to serve the balance of the sentences imposed for the three offences.
2. The court was bound by the Supreme Court’s approach that the adverse effect of extradition or return on a wife, children or the family generally will not normally make it disproportionate to return a person to serve a sentence imposed for criminal offending.
3. The claimant’s circumstances were understandable and sympathetic. His children had come to the United Kingdom after experiencing difficulties in Poland, were being cared for there, and were doing well at school. His former wife was temporarily caring for them while he remained in custody, but intended to return to Poland.
4. Those family considerations did not justify a finding of disproportionality in this case. The offences were relatively serious, and a substantial period of imprisonment remained outstanding.
5. The uncertainty in the European arrest warrant as to whether the sentences or remaining balances would be consecutive or concurrent did not prevent return. That issue could be resolved by the Polish court after his return.
6. The complaint about Polish prison conditions could not assist the claimant in light of the authorities binding on the court.

• District judge: ordered the claimant’s return to Poland to serve the balance of sentences imposed for three offences.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the claimant’s appeal against that order.