Baksalry, R (on the application of) v Regional Court Warsaw, Poland

Oppression under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003 must be assessed in the round, having regard to all relevant circumstances. Culpable delay may be a material factor, but culpable delay alone does not automatically establish oppression. Ordinary stress, hardship and disruption caused by extradition are insufficient. The appellant must establish oppression on the particular facts, applying the statutory test rather than relying on comparisons with other cases.

The claimant appealed against a decision of District Judge Snow ordering his extradition to Poland to face prosecution for alleged thefts from his employer in 2003. Before the district judge, he relied on section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003, contending that the passage of time made extradition unjust or oppressive, and also relied on article 8 rights. The article 8 ground was abandoned on appeal.

The central issue was whether the district judge had erred in concluding that extradition would not be oppressive because of the passage of time, including the alleged delay in locating the claimant.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the district judge’s conclusion that extradition would not be unjust or oppressive under section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003.

2. Oppression must be assessed in the round, taking account of all relevant circumstances. Although culpable delay may, depending on the circumstances, be a highly material factor, there is no rule that culpable delay per se constitutes oppression.

3. The claimant failed to establish culpable delay. The Polish authorities had acted promptly initially and had taken steps to locate him. Even if some delay had been culpable, the overall circumstances did not meet the high threshold for oppression.

4. Applying Republic of South Africa v Dewani [2012] EWCA 842, ordinary stress and hardship associated with extradition are relevant but insufficient by themselves. The claimant’s family and personal disruption therefore did not make extradition oppressive.

5. The application for assessment of legal aid costs was granted.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal against the extradition order was dismissed.
• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Snow directed extradition after rejecting the section 14 and article 8 objections.