Plotkowski v Regional Court In Elblag, Poland

In an extradition case involving a conviction and substantial sentence, return will generally be proportionate despite adverse effects on family life. A substantially higher threshold applies where the claimed interference is the ordinary consequence of imprisonment. Very strong and convincingly established effects on family life are required before Article 8 can prevent extradition.

The court may consider new Article 8 evidence not placed before the magistrates where, if accepted, it is likely to determine the appeal. General reliance on improved prison conditions in Poland was unavailable where the evidence showed that conditions had improved since earlier Strasbourg authority.

The appellant appealed against an order made by District Judge Rose at Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 24 June 2011. He had been ordered to return to Poland to serve approximately two years and ten months for numerous drug offences committed between 1997 and 2001.

Before the Administrative Court, he relied on family life with his partner and her daughter, and on feared prison conditions and possible difficulties with people convicted alongside him. Those matters had not been raised or supported by evidence before the District Judge. The central issues were whether the new evidence should be considered and whether extradition would breach Article 8 or be incompatible with Convention rights.

1. New evidence. The court was required to consider material relevant to an Article 8 issue, even if it could have been produced below, where the material was likely to be determinative. If accepted, it could require refusal of extradition because the court, as a public body, was bound by the Human Rights Act 1998 to act compatibly with Convention rights (para 7).
2. Family life and proportionality. In a conviction case, proportionality had to be assessed against the fact that an offence had been committed and a substantial sentence imposed. Return would generally be proportionate. The threshold could not be reduced so far that the ordinary damaging effects of imprisonment on a partner and child made extradition disproportionate. Very strong grounds, supported by convincing evidence, were required. The fact that the partner and child were Polish and could in principle return to Poland, or make interim arrangements in the United Kingdom, also weighed against the appeal (paras 8–11).
3. Prison conditions. Earlier evidence showed that Polish prison conditions had not met proper standards. However, the European Court of Human Rights decision in Orchowski v Poland (17885/04) recorded improvement after the Polish authorities began taking corrective action. General reliance on prison conditions in Poland was therefore unavailable. The appellant’s particular fears were not established on the evidence (para 5).
4. The suggestion that a Polish lawyer might seek withdrawal of the warrant came too late to justify an adjournment. The appeal was dismissed (paras 12–13).

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Rose ordered extradition on 24 June 2011.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against that order was dismissed.