Grewling v Circuit Court of Gorzow Wielkopowski, Poland

In extradition proceedings, the interests of dependent children are a primary consideration under Article 8, but they do not automatically outweigh the requested State’s duty to honour international obligations. Extradition should be avoided on family-life grounds only in very rare cases where, allowing proportionately for the children’s interests, comparable offending would probably attract an immediate custodial sentence in the United Kingdom. The court must assess the whole circumstances, including the requested person’s fugitive status, the duration and quality of family relationships, available support, likely hardship, delay, and the length and nature of the sentence.

The appellant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s decision directing his return to Poland to serve a two-year sentence for repeated offences of supplying cannabis and amphetamine.

He had left Poland after learning that his sentence had been reduced on appeal, intending to avoid imprisonment. By the time of the extradition proceedings he had married, had two very young children, owned a mortgaged home, and supported seriously ill and elderly relatives in Poland. The central issue was whether the hardship caused by extradition made his return disproportionate under Article 8.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge had been entitled to conclude that the appellant’s return would not be disproportionate under Article 8.
2. The interests of children affected by extradition are a primary consideration, rather than the sole or overriding consideration. The requested State’s fulfilment of its international obligations remains imperative. Following HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] UKSC 25, extradition will ordinarily be avoided on this ground only in very rare cases where, making proportionate allowance for dependent children, comparable offending would probably receive an immediate custodial sentence in the United Kingdom.
3. The offending, involving numerous supplies and quantities which were not insignificant, plainly crossed the custody threshold in the United Kingdom. The proportionality assessment therefore had to give substantial weight to the international obligation to return the fugitive.
4. The appellant’s family hardship was real. Relevant considerations included the children’s young ages, the availability of practical support from relatives, the wife’s ability to care for the children, the appellant’s fugitive status, the recent formation of his family, the two-year sentence, and the absence of evidence that Polish authorities had caused the delay by dilatory conduct.
5. The appellant had chosen to leave Poland to avoid imprisonment. Although extradition might jeopardise the family home and cause serious hardship, the circumstances did not cross the threshold required to make return disproportionate. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was dismissed.
• District Judge Evans: On 20 November 2012, directed the appellant’s return to Poland to serve a two-year sentence.
• Polish Court of Appeal: Reduced the original two-and-a-half-year sentence to two years on 21 May 2006.