Orzechowski, R (On the Application Of) v Regional Court In Katowice Poland

Extradition cases involving delay by foreign authorities must be decided on their own facts. Delay and missed opportunities do not, without more, make extradition oppressive. The court must assess whether the circumstances disclose unfairness or oppression, including the seriousness of the offending, the requested person’s compliance with court orders, and any fault attributable to the requesting authorities.

Under Article 8, the strong public interest in extradition must be balanced against the requested person’s private and family life. Extradition is proportionate where the interference with family life does not outweigh that public interest.

The claimant appealed against District Judge Coleman’s decision of 18 August 2014 ordering his extradition to Poland under a European Arrest Warrant. The warrant concerned an assault involving a knife and drink-driving offences, for which suspended sentences had been activated after alleged non-compliance with probation requirements.

The claimant relied on delay, the failure to deal with the sentences during an earlier extradition to Poland, and his private and family life in the United Kingdom. The central issues were whether extradition would be oppressive and whether it would be disproportionate under Article 8.

1. Oppression and delay. The claimant’s case was distinguishable from Wyczesany v The District Court Warszawa Poland [2013] EWHC 698. In that case there had been unusual circumstances, including an express judicial permission to return to the United Kingdom and an implied finding that the Polish authorities were at fault. Those features were absent here.
2. The offending here was more serious, involving a group assault and the use of a knife. The District Judge had also found that the claimant left Poland without permission and failed to comply with the requirement to keep in touch with his probation officer. Those findings materially weakened the claim that the delay and earlier missed opportunities made extradition oppressive.
3. Each extradition case must be decided on its own facts. Although the Polish authorities’ failure to operate a joined-up system of justice was troubling, it did not make the claimant’s return oppressive.
4. Article 8. The claimant had private and family life in the United Kingdom, but the public interest in extradition was strong. The District Judge had properly considered the claimant’s family circumstances, the care available from the children’s mothers, the seriousness of the offending and the claimant’s conduct. Adopting those reasons, the interference with Article 8 rights was not disproportionate.
5. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Administrative Court): Mr Justice Cranston dismissed the appeal against District Judge Coleman’s extradition order dated 18 August 2014.