Pacia v Judicial Authority of Poland

Under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003, the relevant question is whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive, not merely unfair or harsh. A person who knowingly failed to comply with an obligation to remain in contact with a probation officer could not rely on the passage of time as a bar to extradition. Hardship to a partner or family member arising from a properly imposed sentence did not, without more, make extradition unjust or oppressive.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Riddle’s decision of 26 February 2013 ordering his return to Poland to serve suspended sentences whose suspension had been set aside.

Before the District Judge, the appellant relied on section 14, contending that the passage of time made his return unjust. The District Judge found that he knew of his obligation to remain in contact with his probation officer but failed to do so. On appeal, the appellant also relied on hardship to his partner and stepchild and on a pending application in Poland concerning the sentences. The central issues were whether section 14 applied and whether the order should be deferred.

1. The appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed.

2. The District Judge was entitled to conclude that the appellant was a fugitive from justice. The evidence showed that he knew he was required to remain in contact with his probation officer and failed to do so. He therefore could not rely on section 14.

3. The statutory test was whether extradition would be unjust or oppressive. Mere unfairness was insufficient. The appellant’s return would inevitably cause hardship to his partner and stepchild, but that hardship did not meet the statutory threshold where the sentences had been properly imposed.

4. The possibility of a hearing in Poland concerning suspension of the sentences did not justify adjourning or deferring the appeal. The fourteen-day period before removal provided sufficient time for the position in Poland to become clear. The appeal was accordingly dismissed without deferment.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On 8 May 2013, Mr Justice Collins dismissed the appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003.
• District Judge: On 26 February 2013, District Judge Riddle directed the appellant’s return to Poland to serve the relevant sentences.