Stawicki v Circuit Court of Torun, Poland

In an extradition appeal raising Article 8, the court must balance the serious hardship to the requested person and blameless family members against the public interest in complying with international obligations. Fresh evidence materially changing the family circumstances may require the appellate court to decide the proportionality question afresh. Family hardship, including economic dependence and separation from children, may be compelling, but it does not necessarily outweigh the public interest where extradition is sought to enforce sentences for serious offences.

The appellant challenged an order for his extradition to Poland to serve two custodial sentences imposed for street robberies. The Senior District Judge ordered extradition and rejected the appellant’s reliance on Article 8. On appeal, fresh evidence established that the appellant’s partner was pregnant and that she, their existing child and the unborn child could not realistically relocate to Poland. The central issue was whether, on the updated facts, extradition would be a disproportionate interference with family life.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Senior District Judge’s original reasoning was unimpeachable on the facts then available, but the High Court had to determine the proportionality issue on the materially changed evidence before it.
2. Following the approach suggested by Lady Hale in HH, the court recognised that extradition would cause serious hardship to the appellant and, more importantly, to his blameless partner and children. They would remain in the United Kingdom, become economically dependent on state support, and lose the appellant’s company and emotional support for many months.
3. That hardship had to be balanced against the constant and weighty public interest in compliance with international obligations. The offences were serious, would attract a significant custodial sentence in the United Kingdom, and the Polish sentences were not excessive. Enforcement was necessary to uphold the rule of law in Poland and throughout the European Union.
4. The appellant’s improved conduct and changed circumstances since coming to the United Kingdom were relevant but carried limited weight against that public interest. Although the balance was difficult and finely drawn, the international obligations outweighed the family’s compelling demands. Extradition was therefore proportionate and the appeal was dismissed.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: the Senior District Judge ordered the appellant’s extradition on 3 February 2014 and rejected the Article 8 challenge.
• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal was dismissed on 2 September 2014 after consideration of fresh evidence.