Reczycki v Regional Court, Lodz, Poland

In extradition cases engaging Article 8, the court must balance the interests of dependent children against the public interest in extradition. The children’s interests are a primary consideration, but extradition should be avoided only in very rare cases. The court must assess proportionality itself, even where the requesting state has issued the warrant. The seriousness and age of the offences, the delay in seeking extradition, and the likely impact on the family are relevant. It is not determinative that equivalent offending might not attract immediate custody in the United Kingdom.

The appellant appealed against an order of the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court directing his extradition to Poland under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. The warrant sought enforcement of two suspended sentences for theft. The appellant relied on Article 8, particularly the effect of extradition on his fiancée and their infant son. He also sought postponement to attend a medical appointment. The central issues were whether extradition would be a disproportionate interference with family life and whether the court could postpone extradition without the requesting authority’s agreement.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The extradition order was not incompatible with the appellant’s Article 8 rights or those of his fiancée and son.
2. Under section 21(1) of the Extradition Act 2003, the court had to decide whether extradition would be incompatible with Convention rights. Applying HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic, Genoa [2012] 3 WLR 90, the court had to balance the children’s Article 8 interests against the public interest in extradition, including compliance with extradition obligations and avoiding the United Kingdom becoming a safe haven from criminal process.
3. The son’s interests were a primary consideration and were kept at the forefront of the balancing exercise. Nevertheless, the circumstances did not make extradition disproportionate. The offences were relatively minor, were committed when the appellant was young, and would probably not have crossed the custody threshold domestically. Those matters were relevant but did not determine the outcome. The passage of time before the warrant was issued also assisted the appellant, but did not outweigh the competing public interest.
4. The court was not entitled to question the issuing of the warrant as such. It was, however, required to assess the proportionality of extradition where Article 8 issues arose.
5. The court could not postpone extradition to permit the appellant to attend his endoscopy without the requesting authority’s agreement, under sections 36(2) and 36(3)(b) of the Extradition Act 2003. It indicated that continuity of treatment made attendance at the appointment desirable.

• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court — On 12 December 2012, District Judge Arbuthnot ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland.
• High Court (Administrative Court) — The appeal against that order was dismissed on 1 March 2013.