Ziolkowski v The Circuit Court of Torun, Poland

In an extradition appeal, the warrant must be read as a whole when determining whether the conduct alleged constitutes an extradition offence. The omission of words such as fraud or dishonesty is not decisive where the warrant otherwise clearly identifies fraud. Delay will bar return only where it makes extradition oppressive, and time during which the requested person is a fugitive will not ordinarily assist him. Further information may be considered where the issue was not raised before the district judge. Article 8 provides a separate and demanding proportionality threshold, particularly where the claim rests on family life in the United Kingdom.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against District Judge Riddle’s order for his return to Poland to serve an 18-month suspended sentence imposed after his guilty plea to an offence involving the acquisition of two bicycles through a credit arrangement and the use of another person’s documents.

He argued that the conduct was not an extradition offence because the warrant did not expressly use the words fraud or dishonesty. He also relied on delay and on his wife and family living in the United Kingdom. The court considered whether return would be oppressive or disproportionate.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The order for the appellant’s return to Poland stood.
2. The warrant had to be read as a whole. Although the particulars did not expressly use the words fraud or dishonest, the warrant ticked the fraud category and described conduct which clearly alleged fraud. That was sufficient to disclose an extradition offence.
3. The relevant question on delay was whether return would be oppressive. The appellant could not rely on the period after 2006, when he came to the United Kingdom and breached the conditions of his suspended sentence. The earlier delay was explained by the fact that the complaint was not made until 2003 and by difficulties obtaining evidence. In the circumstances, return was not oppressive.
4. Further information from the prosecuting authority could properly be considered. No issue based on lapse of time had been raised before the district judge, so there had been no obligation to provide that information earlier.
5. The suggested Article 8 claim could not satisfy the threshold identified in HH. The family circumstances did not make return disproportionate.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed.
• District Judge Riddle: Ordered the appellant’s return to Poland to serve an 18-month sentence.