Piotrowicz, R (on the application of) v Regional Court of Kielce, Poland

In extradition proceedings, removal may be disproportionate under Article 8 only in a very strong or exceptional case. The adverse effect of imprisonment or extradition on a family, including children, is not by itself sufficient. The court must give substantial weight to the valid sentence imposed by the requesting state and to the European extradition system, under which participating states recognise each other’s judicial decisions. Sympathy, family disruption, the age of the conviction, repayment of the loss and a pending clemency application do not necessarily overcome those considerations.

The appellant appealed against a decision of District Judge Tubbs in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court ordering his return to Poland to serve just under 18 months’ imprisonment for a theft committed in 2000. He relied on his established family life in the United Kingdom, the effect of extradition on his wife and children, repayment of the stolen money and a pending application for clemency to the President of Poland.

The appeal had been adjourned several times while the clemency application was considered. The central issue was whether the pending application and the appellant’s family circumstances justified further adjournment or rendered extradition disproportionate under Article 8.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Polish arrest warrant remained valid and the sentence remained enforceable. The court could not go behind the decisions of the Polish courts or direct them to withdraw or suspend the warrant.

2. Article 8 required a proportionality assessment. Where extradition was sought to enforce a properly imposed sentence, a very strong case was required before removal could be held disproportionate. The ordinary adverse consequences of imprisonment for a family, including children, could not ordinarily suffice.

3. The children’s settled lives in the United Kingdom and the additional disruption caused by extradition were material considerations. They did not create an absolute right to remain in the United Kingdom, particularly where the family members were Polish nationals and the family could return to Poland.

4. The pending clemency application did not justify further adjournment. It remained uncertain, and the requesting state continued to pursue a valid warrant. The possibility that clemency might later reduce or remove the sentence did not make extradition presently disproportionate.

5. The court expressed sympathy and observed that the Polish authorities could, if they considered it appropriate, withdraw the warrant without prejudice to later reinstatement. That observation was not a direction and did not affect the dismissal of the appeal. A legal aid order was made for the appellant’s costs.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal from the Westminster Magistrates’ Court dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Tubbs ordered the appellant’s return to Poland to serve the sentence.