Blazejewicz, R (On the Application Of) v Circuit Court In Torun, Poland

When extradition is challenged under Article 8, the court must conduct a proportionality balancing exercise. The public interest in extradition is constant and weighty, but its weight varies with the seriousness and nature of the offending and the circumstances of the case. Delay, family or private life, good conduct, age at the time of offending and time already spent in custody may reduce the weight supporting extradition. Generalised evidence of family or private life will not ordinarily outweigh that interest. The seriousness of offending may be demonstrated by the sentence imposed, including an aggregate sentence.

The appellant challenged a district judge’s decision dated 21 January 2014 ordering his extradition to Poland under a European arrest warrant. Poland sought his return to serve the remaining part of an eighteen-month sentence for theft from a car, battery and possession of small quantities of marijuana. The appellant relied on Article 8, including his private life in the United Kingdom, his relationship with his sister and niece, his support for his mother in Poland, his age when offending, delay in issuing the warrant and time already spent in custody.

The central issue was whether extradition would be a disproportionate interference with his Article 8 rights.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Extradition would not be disproportionate.
2. The court applied the proportionality approach stated in HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic Genoa [2012] 3 WLR 90. There is a constant and weighty public interest in extradition, including bringing accused persons to trial, ensuring that convicted persons serve their sentences, honouring treaty obligations and avoiding safe havens. The weight of that interest must nevertheless be assessed in the circumstances of the particular case.
3. The public interest may carry less weight where there has been delay, the offending is comparatively less serious, the requested person is young, or the impact on private and family life, particularly children, is substantial. Relevant considerations may also include health, delay in issuing or certifying the warrant, time spent subject to restrictions or in custody, the sentence remaining to be served and whether the offending was violent or sexual.
4. The seven-year delay in issuing the warrant was not determinative. There was no evidence explaining it, and it might have resulted from the appellant’s whereabouts being unknown rather than culpability by the Polish authorities.
5. The evidence of interference with family life was generalised. The appellant assisted his sister with childcare but was not the child’s principal carer. His employment, friendships and good conduct in the United Kingdom were not, without more, sufficiently significant. Nor were the offences properly categorised as trivial: the aggregate eighteen-month sentence demonstrated a degree of seriousness.
6. Taking all matters together, the public interest in extradition prevailed over the asserted Article 8 interests.

• District judge: On 21 January 2014 ordered the appellant’s extradition to Poland under a European arrest warrant.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Dismissed the appeal and held that extradition was proportionate.