Marzurkiewicz v District Court In Rzeszow Poland

Where an extradition appeal concerns return to serve a sentence, subsequent events may make the proposed extradition abusive. If the requested person has completed the sentence under the law of the requesting state while awaiting the appeal, the extradition should not continue and the person should be discharged. The court may determine the appeal on that basis without deciding an alternative challenge based on the proportionality of interference with family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The claimant appealed against an order for his extradition to Poland to serve a one-year sentence for burglary. He had resisted extradition on Article 8 grounds, relying on his wife and young children in the United Kingdom. The District Judge concluded that extradition would be proportionate.

Pending the appeal, the claimant remained subject to an electronic curfew. Under Polish law, each day on curfew counted towards the sentence. By the hearing, more than twelve months had elapsed and the sentence was therefore complete. Poland accepted that, in those circumstances, continuing the extradition would be an abuse of process.

1. Appeal allowed. The claimant had completed his Polish sentence while subject to electronic curfew during the pendency of the appeal. The requesting judicial authority accepted that extradition should not continue and that doing so would constitute an abuse of process.

2. The subsequent completion of the sentence overtook the earlier development concerning a request for the claimant to serve the sentence in the United Kingdom. Since there was no remaining sentence to be served in Poland, the proper order was to discharge the claimant.

3. It was unnecessary to determine the original Article 8 ground. The court therefore made no further assessment of whether the interference with family life resulting from extradition was proportionate or compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

4. There was no order for costs. The claimant’s publicly funded costs were subject to detailed assessment.

• Magistrates’ Court: The District Judge ordered extradition to Poland after concluding that the interference with the claimant’s family life was proportionate.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was allowed because the claimant had completed his sentence under Polish law while awaiting the appeal. He was discharged.