Czerwinski v Circuit Court, Poznan, Poland

In an extradition case engaging Article 8, the interests of affected children are a primary consideration, but extradition will ordinarily be avoided only in very rare cases. The court must balance the children’s rights against the public interest in extraditing persons convicted of serious offences, honouring extradition obligations and preventing the United Kingdom becoming a safe haven. The court must assess the proportionality of extradition itself, even where the requesting state has not apparently undertaken that assessment. Personal hardship, loss of employment or career, and disruption to family contact will not necessarily make extradition disproportionate. The seriousness of the offences, the custody threshold, the remaining sentence and the child’s actual care arrangements remain material.

The appellant appealed against an order of the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court directing his extradition to Poland under a conviction European Arrest Warrant. He relied on his rights, and those of his young daughter and her mother, under Article 8. He also relied on fresh evidence concerning his daughter’s mother, his daughter’s care, his professional cage-fighting career and a possible need for further surgery.

The central issues were whether extradition would be a disproportionate interference with family life and whether the appeal should be adjourned pending medical assessment.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The order for extradition remained in force.
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 appellant’s and the children’s Article 8 interests against the public interest in extraditing persons convicted of crime, complying with extradition obligations and preventing the United Kingdom becoming a safe haven.
3. The interests of children were a primary consideration and had to be at the forefront of the court’s mind. Nevertheless, resistance to extradition based on dependent children’s interests would ordinarily succeed only in very rare cases. The court had to consider the proportionality of extradition under the warrant, even though there was no evidence that the Polish authorities had separately considered proportionality.
4. The appellant’s offences were serious and would have crossed the custody threshold in the United Kingdom. The offences were old and most of the sentence had been served, but a substantial period remained and extradition was not said to be unjust or oppressive because of delay. The appellant had not been his daughter’s primary carer, and there was no sufficient evidence that her mother could not resume full-time care.
5. The loss of the appellant’s fighting career and the possible financial and caring hardship did not outweigh the competing public interests. His possible surgery could be undertaken in Poland, and the fresh evidence would not have altered the district judge’s conclusion. The application to adjourn was refused.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal against the extradition order was dismissed.
• City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court: Senior District Judge Riddle ordered extradition to Poland on 11 December 2012.