Janaszek v Circuit Court In Plock (Polish Judicial Authority)

In extradition proceedings, an English court should not ordinarily adjourn to await parallel proceedings or a possible compromise in the requesting state. Only an exceptional, very short delay may justify it. A suicide risk arising from a voluntary attempt to prevent extradition does not, without more, make extradition oppressive or carry decisive weight under Article 8. The court must assess the actual family circumstances, including existing care arrangements and evidence of lasting harm, against the seriousness of the offending and the public interest in an effective extradition process. That public interest may prevail where the interference with family life is proportionate. The appeal was dismissed, subject to any necessary discharge concerning accusations that had become time-barred.

The appellant challenged an order made by District Judge Coleman at Westminster Magistrates’ Court requiring her extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. The original grounds included alleged incompatibility with Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR and an error under section 20(7) of the Extradition Act 2003. During the appeal, the appellant relied on suicide risk, family circumstances, possible sentence reduction in Poland and time-barred accusation matters. She also sought an adjournment until a Polish hearing concerning sentence aggregation. The central issues were whether the appeal should be delayed, whether extradition would be oppressive or disproportionate, and what effect should be given to the time-barred accusations.

Appeal dismissed. The dismissal was subject to the appellant being discharged, if that was the correct order, in relation to two accusation matters that had become time-barred.

1. Adjournment. It was inappropriate to await the outcome of a Polish hearing concerning sentence aggregation or possible early release. An English extradition court should not ordinarily adjourn while parallel proceedings, an appeal, a sentence challenge or a possible compromise is pursued in the requesting state. Only the most exceptional circumstances, involving a delay of about a day or so, could justify an adjournment. The approach in Jeriorowski v Regional Court of Torun [2010] EWHC 3620 (Admin) and Baghishyan v District Court in Zamusc, Poland [2011] EWHC 1297 (Admin) was adopted. Ulatowski v Regional Court in Gdansk, Poland [2011] EWHC 1260 (Admin), Galewski v Judicial Authorities of Poland [2011] EWHC 317 (Admin), Arkadiusz Werner v Circuit Court in Poznan, Poland [2011] EWHC 1651 (Admin) and Dyna v Regional Court in Bielsko Biala [2010] EWHC 3396 (Admin) illustrated the same approach.
2. Suicide risk. The appellant’s suicide attempt was voluntary because it was undertaken to prevent her return to Poland. The risk did not make extradition oppressive under section 25 of the Extradition Act 2003 or constitute a significant and decisive factor in the Article 8 assessment. The court accepted that the UK prison authorities could manage the risk and encouraged them to alert the Polish authorities and provide the psychiatric report before hand-over.
3. Article 8. The District Judge had assessed the family circumstances carefully and sensitively. The younger child had already been cared for by the appellant’s parents for about 15 months. There was no evidence of lasting psychological damage or that care could not continue. The seriousness of the offending and the public interest in maintaining an effective extradition process outweighed the interference with the family’s Article 8 rights.
4. Other matters. The points concerning delay had no operative relevance. The appellant was highly likely to have been a fugitive, viewed realistically, notwithstanding that the District Judge had not addressed that issue expressly.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — On 3 July 2013, Mr Justice Foskett dismissed the appeal, subject to any necessary discharge concerning two accusation matters that had become time-barred: [2013] EWHC 1880 (Admin).
2. Westminster Magistrates’ Court — District Judge Coleman ordered the appellant’s extradition in a written judgment delivered on 13 November 2012.