Jawulska, R (On the Application Of) v The Regional Court In Szezecin Poland

In an appeal under the Extradition Act 2003, the court may cure an irregular failure to serve an appeal notice within time where the prosecuting authority was nevertheless notified of the appeal and the appellant was not at fault. The statutory and procedural time limit remains strict, but its operation is qualified by the court’s discretion to remedy an irregularity consistently with the purpose of the notice requirement.

In an Article 8 challenge to extradition, the threshold for showing that extradition would be disproportionate is high. The court must balance the importance of compliance with extradition and treaty obligations against the individual and family circumstances, including the impact on children. Serious adverse consequences for family members do not necessarily make extradition disproportionate.

The claimant appealed under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against a District Judge’s decision directing her extradition to Poland to face an allegation of obtaining money by deception. The notice of appeal was filed within seven days but was not served on the Crown Prosecution Service within that period. The court therefore had to decide whether the appeal could proceed.

On the merits, the claimant relied on Article 8, principally because extradition would remove her from her vulnerable 17-and-a-half-year-old son, for whom she was the sole carer. The central issues were whether the procedural irregularity could be cured and whether extradition would be disproportionate in the circumstances.

1. Procedural jurisdiction. Section 26(4) of the Extradition Act 2003, CPR 52 and paragraph 21.1.3 of Practice Direction 52D require an appeal notice to be filed and served within seven days. The notice was filed in time but served late. The court accepted that the rule had not been complied with.
2. The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that the prosecuting authority knows promptly that an appeal has been lodged, so that extradition arrangements are not made prematurely. Following the generous approach indicated in Pomiechowski v the District Court of Legnica Poland [2012] 1 WLR 1604, the court could cure the irregularity because the CPS had been notified within time through the court, the appellant was not at fault, and refusing relief would prevent consideration of a potentially meritorious appeal. The appeal was therefore admitted.
3. The court rejected the contrary analysis in Andrzejak v the Polish Judicial Authority [2012] EWHC 2929 (Admin). That decision wrongly treated notice to the court as a strict statutory requirement but notice to other parties as merely a procedural obligation capable of extension. It should not be relied on, cited or followed.
4. Article 8 merits. The effect on the claimant’s vulnerable son would be greater than normal, and family life could potentially continue after he reached 18 in a special case. Nevertheless, the threshold for establishing that extradition is disproportionate is high. The court applied the approach in HH, understood as the correct interpretation of Norris. The importance of complying with extradition and treaty obligations had to be balanced against the family circumstances. The possibility of harsh consequences, suitable support, or the claimant’s son accompanying her did not make extradition disproportionate.
5. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal under section 26 of the Extradition Act 2003 against the District Judge’s extradition order of 24 January 2014. The appeal was admitted despite late service and dismissed on the Article 8 merits.