Jarmula v Regional Court of Tarnow Poland

In an extradition appeal, family impact under Article 8 does not make removal disproportionate merely because the requested person supports a partner and children in the United Kingdom. The court must assess the circumstances against the principles governing Article 8 proportionality, including the family’s ability to cope during the person’s absence and the length of any sentence remaining to be served. Where the appeal has no merit, the court may determine it in the appellant’s absence, while allowing a short period for written representations if fairness requires.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s decision that he should be extradited to Poland to serve a 10-month sentence for possession of amphetamines with intent to supply. He relied on the effect of extradition on his partner and three children, and argued that removal would breach Article 8.

The appeal was heard in the claimant’s absence after repeated failures by prison authorities to comply with production orders. The central issue was whether the family circumstances made extradition disproportionate under the principles identified by the Supreme Court in HH.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge had correctly concluded that the case did not fall within the principles identified by the Supreme Court in HH for determining whether extradition would be disproportionate under Article 8.
2. The claimant’s partner had managed while he had been in custody, with assistance available. There was no sufficient reason why she could not continue to cope in the United Kingdom or return to Poland with the children. The fact that the claimant might face economic and emotional difficulties on return did not establish a bar to extradition.
3. The short period remaining of the sentence, approximately two months, further weakened the Article 8 case. The family impact had to be assessed in that practical context.
4. Although it would ordinarily be difficult to determine an appeal in the absence of an unrepresented appellant, the court was satisfied that the appeal had no merit. Fresh evidence should have been placed before the District Judge if it was material.
5. To safeguard fairness, the dismissal was suspended for seven days. The claimant could submit written reasons why extradition should not take place. Any submissions were to be considered urgently, with oral representations only if directed. Enquiries were also ordered into the prison authorities’ repeated failures to comply with production orders, with wasted costs left for later determination.

• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003, subject to a seven-day period for written representations.
• District Judge: ordered extradition to Poland so that the claimant could serve a 10-month sentence.