Jakubik v Regional Court In Opole Poland

In an extradition appeal involving an Article 8 claim, personal, financial and family difficulties must satisfy a high threshold before they can prevent removal. The threshold reflects the importance of complying with the United Kingdom’s international extradition obligations, particularly where the requested person faces a substantial sentence for a serious offence.

The appellant challenged a district judge’s decision under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 ordering his removal to Poland to serve approximately two years and nine months’ imprisonment for robbery. He relied on his partner’s pregnancy, the difficulties she would face during his absence, and financial problems. No objection to removal had been raised before the district judge. The central issue was whether those circumstances established an Article 8 claim sufficient to prevent extradition.

1. Appeal dismissed. The decision ordering removal to Poland was upheld.
2. The appellant’s case amounted to an Article 8 claim, but the threshold for preventing extradition on that basis was high. The court applied the approach in HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25.
3. The high threshold reflected the importance of complying with the United Kingdom’s international obligations concerning extradition. The fact that the appellant faced a substantial prison sentence for a clearly serious offence reinforced the weight of the extradition interests.
4. The appellant’s partner was pregnant and would face practical difficulties if he were extradited. The appellant also referred to financial problems. Those matters, considered together, fell far short of what was required to establish an Article 8 bar to removal.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed, and the district judge’s removal decision was upheld.