Piotrowicz v Regional Court in Gdansk Poland

Under section 19B of the Extradition Act 2003, the court must first decide whether a substantial measure of the defendant’s relevant activity was performed in the United Kingdom. If so, it must determine whether extradition would not be in the interests of justice by considering only the specified statutory matters. The prosecutor’s belief about the most appropriate jurisdiction is not ordinarily subject to an extensive evidential review. Cost may be considered as one aspect of practicability, but should not dominate. A reference to the “balance of convenience” does not create a different test where the statutory factors have been addressed. Article 8 family-life rights must be balanced against the seriousness of the alleged offending, including the interests of children.

The appellant appealed against an order of the Westminster Magistrates’ Court extraditing him to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant concerning four drug-trafficking offences. Part of the alleged offending had already been dealt with in England and was removed from the extradition case on double-jeopardy grounds.

The appeal challenged the District Judge’s approach to the forum bar in section 19B of the Extradition Act 2003, including the treatment of the prosecutor’s belief, evidential inquiries and trial cost. It also challenged extradition as disproportionate under Article 8 of the Convention, relying partly on fresh evidence that the appellant’s current partner was pregnant.

1. Appeal dismissed. The District Judge had correctly approached the forum issue and had not erred in ordering extradition.
2. Section 19B requires a threshold finding that a substantial measure of the defendant’s relevant activity was performed in the United Kingdom. If that condition is met, the court must consider whether extradition would not be in the interests of justice, having regard only to the matters specified in section 19B(3). The exercise is fact-specific, and the statutory factors may carry different weights in different cases.
3. The prosecutor’s belief that the United Kingdom was not the most appropriate jurisdiction is one factor among others. Following Dibden v Tribunal de Grande Instance de Lille France [2014] EWHC 3074 (Admin), section 19B(3)(c) does not invite an extensive review or disclosure exercise concerning the basis of that belief. Limited inquiries into its broad basis may be appropriate, but an irrational belief would carry little or no weight.
4. Trial cost could be considered under section 19B(3)(f) as an aspect of the desirability and practicability of prosecution. It should not become decisive without proper justification. The reference to the “balance of convenience” was treated as shorthand for the overall assessment of the statutory factors, not as an additional test.
5. The fresh evidence of the appellant’s partner’s pregnancy was admissible under Fenebessi. Applying the Article 8 principles in HH, the family interests of the appellant, his existing daughter, his partner and the expected child did not outweigh the very serious drug-trafficking allegations. The District Judge had made no error.
6. An expedited transcript was ordered on payment of the appropriate fee.

• Westminster Magistrates’ Court: District Judge Goldspring ordered extradition on 28 July 2014 under the European Arrest Warrant.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal was dismissed and the District Judge’s approach to section 19B and Article 8 was upheld.