Brand, R (on the application of) v Regional Court In Krakow

Extradition to serve a sentence will be proportionate unless the individual circumstances disclose compelling reasons to take a different view. Family separation and hardship to dependent children do not, without more, justify allowing a person convicted of serious offences to avoid imprisonment imposed by the requesting state. The court must assess proportionality under Article 8 while recognising the obligation inherent in the European Arrest Warrant system to secure service of properly imposed sentences. Article 3 objections based on prison conditions face a high threshold, particularly where the requesting state is a party to the European Convention on Human Rights and can take steps to prevent serious ill-treatment.

The claimant appealed against a district judge’s order for his extradition to Poland to serve approximately two years remaining from sentences totalling three years for numerous dishonesty offences. He challenged extradition on the grounds that Polish prison conditions would breach Article 3 and that removal would disproportionately interfere with his family life under Article 8.

He had lived and worked in the United Kingdom for about five years, with his Polish partner and their two young Polish children. The central issues were whether the prison conditions created a real Article 3 concern and whether the effect of extradition on the family made removal disproportionate.

1. Article 3. The threshold for establishing that prison conditions breach Article 3 is high. Although conditions in Poland might be substantially less pleasant than those in the United Kingdom, the claimant identified no special reason to believe that he would be targeted or exposed to serious ill-treatment. Poland was a party to the European Convention on Human Rights and the authorities could take protective steps. The district judge’s conclusions on the prison conditions issue were upheld.
2. Article 8 and proportionality. The court had to decide whether extradition was proportionate in the individual circumstances. The claimant’s family circumstances and the difficulties caused to his partner and children were relevant, but they did not by themselves justify permitting him to remain in the United Kingdom and avoid a substantial sentence imposed for serious criminal activity.
3. The children were Polish, as were both parents. There was no reason in principle why the family could not go to Poland. The fact that the family preferred to remain in the United Kingdom did not outweigh the need to ensure, within the European Arrest Warrant system, that sentences imposed by the requesting state were served, absent good reasons for a different conclusion.
4. The court noted that the Supreme Court was considering whether the approach in Norris v United States should be modified in light of immigration authorities concerning the weight to be given to children. That question did not alter the conclusion on the facts of this case.
5. Extradition was proportionate. The appeal was dismissed.

1. District judge: District Judge Grant ordered the claimant’s extradition to Poland on 3 November 2011.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed. The extradition order stood.