Wielgus v District Court In Krakow (Poland)

On an appeal against extradition, fresh evidence may justify interference where it demonstrates a substantial and current risk that removal would disproportionately affect the Article 8 rights of close family members. The court must balance the strong public interest in honouring extradition arrangements against the particular consequences of removal. Exceptional circumstances may be established without psychiatric evidence where the available medical and welfare evidence is sufficiently cogent. Delay and the requested person’s fugitive status may be relevant, but their weight depends on the circumstances and the reliability of the information available.

The claimant appealed against an order made by District Judge Snow requiring his extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. The warrant concerned enforcement of a sentence of one year and six months’ imprisonment imposed for fraud.

At the extradition hearing, the claimant relied on the health of his partner and their young son. The District Judge found that the partner could care for the child and that extradition would be proportionate. After that decision, the partner attempted suicide and received mental-health treatment. Evidence also showed that the child was anxious and hyperactive, had been referred for support, and had had a nursery placement deferred.

The central issues were whether the new material satisfied the threshold for fresh evidence and whether, in light of the family circumstances, extradition would be disproportionate under Article 8.

1. Appeal allowed. The European Arrest Warrant was discharged.
2. The subsequent medical and welfare material was fresh evidence satisfying the high threshold identified in Hungarian Judicial Authorities v Fenyvesi [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin). It showed that circumstances had moved on significantly, and adversely, since the District Judge’s decision.
3. The partner had attempted suicide and had not demonstrated recovery despite treatment. The child did not have identified mental-health difficulties, but was anxious and hyperactive, required further assistance, and had suffered a delayed nursery admission. Taken together, the evidence demonstrated a substantial risk to both if the claimant were removed.
4. The court accepted the strong public interest in maintaining extradition arrangements with Poland. It also recognised uncertainty about the chronology of the delay and that the seriousness of the offence could not be assessed beyond the warrant’s description. Those considerations did not outweigh the family evidence.
5. The court treated Nikitins v Prosecutor General’s Office, Republic of Latvia [2012] EWHC 2621 as illustrating an exceptional category of case involving the capacity of the partner left behind. Psychiatric evidence was absent here, but the court held that the conclusion of disproportionality did not require it.
6. Although delay and fugitive status may bear on the balance, the court declined to give them determinative weight in the circumstances. Extradition would therefore be disproportionate.

• High Court (Administrative Court): allowed the appeal against District Judge Snow’s August 2012 extradition order and discharged the European Arrest Warrant.