Wojcik v District Court In Koszalin, Poland

In deciding whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with a child’s interests, the court must balance safeguarding the child’s rights against the public interest in extradition and the United Kingdom’s international obligations. The child’s interests are a primary consideration, but they do not automatically prevent extradition. The court should assess the actual care arrangements and the extent of the likely impact. A claimed loss of contact will not make extradition disproportionate where the appellant is not shown to be the sole or primary carer and adequate care can be provided by the other parent.

The appellant had been ordered by the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court to be extradited to Poland under a conviction warrant so that he could serve the uncompleted parts of sentences for driving offences and burglary. He appealed to the Administrative Court. His notice of appeal did not challenge the magistrates’ refusal to adjourn under the Extradition Act 2003 on grounds of physical condition. Before the High Court, he relied principally on his relationship with his young son, his circumstances in the United Kingdom, his dog and the circumstances of the burglary.

The central issue was whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with the interests of his son.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The grounds concerning the appellant’s physical condition, the burglary, compensation, his dog and his established life in the United Kingdom did not disclose proper grounds of appeal.
2. Applying H(H) v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] 3 WLR 90, the court had to balance the child’s interests against the obligation to extradite persons facing criminal proceedings or serving sentences abroad, the observance of extradition arrangements and the public interest in preventing the United Kingdom becoming a safe haven. The child’s interests were a primary consideration and had to be kept at the forefront of the decision.
3. The appellant might lose contact with his son, and the son might lose the appellant’s assistance with his care. However, the appellant had not shown that he was the sole or primary carer, or that the child’s mother could not provide adequate care. On the evidence, extradition would not be a disproportionate interference with the son’s interests.
4. The court also identified a possible defect in service of the notice of appeal. Under section 26(4) of the Extradition Act 2003 and paragraph 22.6A(3)(a) of the Practice Direction supplementing Part 52 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the notice had to be filed and served within seven days. The court declined to decide whether the time could be extended for a non-British European Union national. Assuming that an extension was available, this was not an appropriate case for one because the appellant had been advised of the requirements, compliance would have been straightforward and the appeal lacked merit.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal from the extradition order made by District Judge Rose at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court on 17 August 2012 was dismissed.