Neuman v Circuit Court of Katowice Poland

Under the Extradition Act 2003, a fugitive who cannot establish that return would be unjust cannot rely on section 14. That does not prevent lapse of time from being material to the separate assessment under Article 8. In deciding proportionality, the court may weigh the unexplained delay in seeking return, the age at which the offence was committed, the period already spent in custody, the short balance of the sentence, and the disruption to established family life. Return may be disproportionate even where the person is a fugitive and the statutory bar under section 14 is unavailable.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s order for his return to Poland to serve the remaining one month and 22 days of sentences imposed for offences committed when he was 17. He had lived and worked in the United Kingdom with his partner since 2006 and they had a young daughter. The Polish authorities issued the relevant warrant approximately five years after he came to the United Kingdom. The central issue was whether, despite his fugitive status, return would be unjust or disproportionate having regard to Article 8 and the established family life.

The appeal was allowed.

1. The claimant was a fugitive because, after being told to return to Poland to complete the necessary requirements, he did not do so. Under the principle stated in Kakis v Government of Cyprus [1978] 1 WLR 779, he could not establish that it would be unjust to return him and therefore could not rely on section 14 of the Extradition Act 2003.

2. That conclusion did not resolve the Article 8 issue. The lapse of time remained a material consideration. The five-year delay in issuing the warrant was regarded as totally unreasonable, particularly given that the offence had been committed nearly 14 years earlier and the claimant had matured and behaved properly since his release.

3. The short period remaining to be served did not make return automatically proportionate. Return would involve imprisonment in Poland and a disruption of established family life, including separation from the claimant’s partner and young child.

4. Proportionality had to be assessed on the facts of the individual case. In the circumstances, the unexplained delay, the claimant’s age when offending, the short balance of the sentence and the consequences for family life made return disproportionate. The court made the usual order for a legally aided claimant.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — The appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 was allowed.
2. District Judge — District Judge Coleman ordered the claimant’s return to Poland.