Kliczbor-Kot v Regional Court, Warsaw, Poland

In an extradition case engaging Article 8, the court must balance the individual's family and private-life rights against the public interest in giving effect to extradition obligations. The relatively high threshold for resisting extradition is not met by financial hardship or ordinary dependency alone. Particular weight may arise where extradition is sought for an offence of limited gravity and the person has sole responsibility for an incapacitated family member. The family member must be incapacitated, or likely to become so in a material and sufficiently proximate period. The court must assess proportionality on the evidence available and may refuse an adjournment where further evidence is speculative and unlikely to affect the result.

The appellant appealed against an order of the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court directing her extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. The warrant sought her return to face trial for an alleged fraud involving telephone equipment and telecommunications services.

The original oppression-by-delay ground was abandoned. The remaining issue was whether extradition would disproportionately interfere with the appellant's or her partner's Article 8 rights because of his ill-health and alleged need for her care. The appellant also sought an adjournment to await medical investigations concerning a thyroid lump.

1. Appeal dismissed. The application to adjourn the appeal was refused. The fresh medical evidence showed that the partner's vocal-cord lesion was benign, while the possible significance of the thyroid lump remained speculative. There was no evidence that he was likely to become incapacitated in the near or intermediate future.
2. The court applied the relatively high threshold identified in Norris v Government of the United States (No 2) [2010] 2 AC 487 and HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic Genoa [2012] 3 WLR 90. Although the offence was not among the most serious and there was no indication that the Polish authorities had considered proportionality, that did not determine the issue.
3. Under Article 8, the court had to balance the appellant's and her partner's rights against the public interests in extradition, honouring extradition obligations and preventing the United Kingdom from becoming a safe haven for persons avoiding criminal process abroad. The partner was not incapacitated and could fend for himself. Financial hardship and dependence on the appellant's income were insufficient.
4. On the evidence, extradition would not be a disproportionate interference with either person's Article 8 rights. The judge would not have reached a different conclusion had the fresh evidence been before the district judge.

High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the City of Westminster Magistrates' Court's extradition order was dismissed. The application for an adjournment was refused.